Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:13, 4 April 2019

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun

Ted hamiltun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ted hamiltun made some very sporadic edits since the account got created in 2017, but his activities suddenly intensified in March 2019.

• Using the ethnicity/race card when dealing with other users ("removed by an Iranian user" : "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" ).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : ), here are some examples : , , ,

Looking at the compelling evidence, it seems this user is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by being WP:TENDENTIOUS on every level. Thus, we can conclude that he/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. I report him here since this has been suggested by an admin on AN3 : .---Wikaviani 00:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The reported user has battleground mentality and aggressive behavior. He's unable to participate in a proper way. See how he replied to my comment. Also please see this archived 3RR report for more details about him and comments by other editors; @HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, and Qahramani44:. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

He is indeed quite fond of fabricating sources to suit his pov-pushing Not to mention he has a PHD in spamming talk pages with his rants (I can't be bothered to show 8 links for this one, just look at his every edit basically). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm dragged into this now, may as well add another point too that hasn't yet been stated. Besides his ethnicity-baiting posts, falsifying sources/pushing non-RS sources, and edit-warring, he also seems to have blatantly ban-evaded here , with this new IP that only posted once, in the same page that he was edit-warring in before, immediately after he was banned for edit-warring. Qahramani44 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Users user:Wikaviani User:Qahramani44, User:Wario-Man User:HistoryofIran

Note: Ted Hamiltun opened this new thread. Since it is the same issue, I am merging it here to centralize consensus building. Captain Eek ⚓ 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear Wiki Adminstration these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team taking advantage of wiki rules to push their Ideas in different articles and boycott any other source of Information which contradict their views

If you have noticed they're all take part in attacking and reporting Individuals that they consider a chalenge to their views, accusing him with all sort of accusation , aggressive, mentally ill, fabricating sources, racist, nationalist, having Agendas and etc....

This all started when I asked them to remove a phrase that Is not in cited source which meant to eliminate the presence of a whole population of a province a phrase which spread hatred, User:Wario-Man with aid of User:HistoryofIran changing role continued reverting my ask for providing a sourc to that phrase or just remove it, I even express my concern about the issue with them In talk page but no one responded, due to this Ignoring and aggresive behaviour my last attempt to solve the problem was to write for other editors to take part in this discussion and put an end to this illegal behaviours which User:HistoryofIran interpret as ranting against "Persian editors", and reported me, I got Blocked 48 hours for  reverting my legal request to remove a racist phrase which is not in the cited source after I wrote for you and other editors "finally" User:Wario-Man removed that phrase, with so much anger you can see they have highly an Anti-Semitism view to the topics that they engage

Now they changing, The other member of the team user:Wikaviani is reporting me  with his team mates, and again they are all came back accusing me with all kind of accusations Just to eliminate me once and for all and make It easy for themselves to apply their Ideas with out any question

I ask you to take a carefull look at these unjust acts and misusing of Wiki environment

Thank you  Ted hamiltun (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ted hamiltun: What ideas do you believe those editors are unfairly pushing? Can you provide more diffs? Bold claims require appropriate evidence. My advice to you: instead of leveling personal attacks on editors like Wario-Man, or reporting those who reported you, you should be examining your own conduct and responding to the valid concerns brought up about you at this noticeboard. Captain Eek ⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

taking advantage of wiki rules Boy I sure hate it when folks follow the rules around here... Captain Eek ⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. WP:SHOT and abusing report system. This is 2nd time this user shoots himself in the foot. See how he tried to delete and manipulate another editor's report on 3RR noticeboard.12 --Wario-Man (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment "these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team" just another example of Ted hamiltun's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and ranting toward a group of editors.---Wikaviani 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: He's WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. Look at this diff. He deleted and manipulated this report just like what he did on 3RR noticeboard. Clearly he has no idea what WP is and uses it like a forum. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ted hamiltun just posted this on my talk page. I think the real highlight is this personal attack: It's so simple these guys all are Iranian with racist agenda attack individuals. Captain Eek ⚓ 07:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a big WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here. For instance, reporting the users who reported them, repeatedly using personal attacks about race and ethnicity, and POV pushing. At any rate, I think there is also a serious WP:CIR issue. I don't use CIR lightly, but I think that this is such a case. While I understand that English is not everyone's first language, this is the English Misplaced Pages. CIR presumes that users have the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively as well as the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. Ted's talk page messages are cryptic to the point of unreadable, their edits to Persian Gulf and the subsequent talk page conversations show that they are unable to effectively communicate, are unwilling to follow sources, and can't be bothered by consensus. Combined with their generally uncivil handling of this ANI, I think Ted is WP:NOTHERE and needs a sharp tap of the sysop mop. Captain Eek ⚓ 08:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, i forgot to mention his WP:CIR issues (inability to speak and comprehend English properly). Thanks.---Wikaviani 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Proposal: As numerous editors pointed out with their above remarks, it appears quite obvious that Ted hamiltun is not here to build an encyclopedia, has some serious WP:CIR issues and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Therefore, i propose an indefinite block for this user as previously suggested by an admin at AN3.---Wikaviani 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above comments and provided evidences. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per my above comment. I do however see that this user only has 130 edits, so I don't necessarily want to bite a newbie here. Note that I have slightly reformatted the proposal to remove excessive bolding. If anyone believes that to be an inappropriate refactor, please revert me and let me know :) Captain Eek ⚓ 07:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he's only 130 edits, but he has been editing here for about 1 year, so, he's not really a newby IMO. Also, thanks very much for removing excessive bolding of my proposal.---Wikaviani 21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone who has 100+ edits, joined since 2017-12-10, and is active on other WPs is not a newbie or inexperienced user. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I know for myself that I was certainly a newbie editor at 130 edits. Even though I'd been on the project for years, at 130 edits I just didn't know much about policy and mainly just fixed typos. It wasn't until I got several hundreds edits and started editing regularly that I got familiar with how stuff works around here. And English WP policy obviously differs from that of other projects. Captain Eek ⚓ 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reason that he doesn't seem to have learned or changed his behavior in any way over the past month, even after being banned once for edit warring. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support The compelling evidence shows that he's indeed not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Without a doubt WP:NOTHERE INeedSupport 17:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Note to administrators : Please review this report, it's 12 days old and has been archived two times while there is a clear consensus for its outcome. Thanks.---Wikaviani 10:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see anything in the recent editing history that would make me comfortable blocking this individual. UninvitedCompany 19:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the said user has stopped his disruptive editing since this report was filed, but they'll come at it again as soon as we will close it.---Wikaviani 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps we just give them a warning for now, and the next time they are disruptive a block is highly likely. Captain Eek ⚓ 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Time for a warning not a block. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per 209.152.44.201. If you feel you really need to block the user, maybe block for a month or so? Not indefinite. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as a slight over-reaction at this point, although if it re-occurs this discussion will be Exhibit A. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a block since he's clearly stopped the disruptive behavior since this (rather long and stale) discussion has been going but I Support a strongly worded trouting with the clear message that further disruption will result in a time out. Dusti 11:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment : You all might take a look at this. This editor was already warned to stop disruption at AN3 by Martin (an admin) and blocked 48 hours for edit warring. And now this case, i'm wondering how many times we should keep this kind of clearly WP:NOTHERE user who made some 130 edits in 1 year without a single constructive contrubution to this project ? If one of you is able to find some constructive contributions from this editor, then please go ahead, warn him and close this case. Good luck. Best regards.---Wikaviani 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac and portals

I am growing increasingly concerned that Legacypac (talk · contribs) is becoming obsessed with deleting portals to the point they may be trying to prevent users who might have opinions differing from theirs from finding out about their existence. As just the two most recent examples, they left a message on my talk page suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy, and reverted my tagging a portal nominated for deletion for relevant WikiProjects as "disruptive" - my goal with starting with those portals nominated for deletion is so that they appear in article alert lists so potentially interested editors get to see the portal and/or the deletion nomination (whatever their opinion of them). Note that I believe some but not all of the nominated portals should be deleted (and that some others should be merged), and I'm not restricting my tagging to portals I have one particular opinion about. My choice of projects to tag is those I see as the most relevant of those projects who tag the portal's main article (e.g. the Wisconsin and University projects for universities in that state).

This is in addition to ad hominem comments - see as just one example the most recent against me at WT:CSD . There are plenty of others on that page and in the majority of his MfD nominations (usually but not exclusively against The Transhumanist, whether they were the creator of that portal or not). There are several examples of bad-faith and ad hominem arguments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of portals is also pending at WP:AN. The particular comment for which Thryduulf provided the diff was a minor lapse in civility by Legacypac, who has been civil and has been focusing on content rather than on contributors. The real problem is the thousands of portals that have been created for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Thryduulf requesting any sort of administrative action against User:Legacypac? I do not think that any administrative action is warranted except for closure of the MFDs for portals and the deletion of unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the situation and decide whether any administrative action is warranted because I'm concerned that their behaviour is degenerating. Asking admins here to bypass the ongoing discussion in several RfCs and MfDs is certainly not what I was asking for and I sincerely hope that my reading your comments as asking for that is a misinterpretation on my part. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad User:Thryduulf brought this to AN so that their conduct can be examined. As an Admin this user should exercise better judgement then we see reflected in their posts to MFDs and the WP:X3 thread. They are making strange statements that suggest an unclear understanding of policy, and have started to vote for mergers of portals into nonexistent portals. How can a closimg Admin interpret a vote to merge Portal:The Ohio State University into Portal:Universities in Ohio or any page into a nonexistent page. I'm also curious to see a deletion sorting effort at MFD when I've never seen deletion sorting before there. It seems like an Admin's time at MFD would be better spent closing the list of MfDs that are well beyond closing time instead of deletion sorting. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The administrative action that I was requesting above is to close those MFDs for which the 7-day period has passed. I did not refer to RFCs because the RFCs are still running. I see no deterioration of behavior. On the contrary, Legacypac has been patient, especially in view of the absurdly large number of portals that have been created without consideration of their maintenance, and the civil obfuscation of the issues by the advocates of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this Admin has misrepresented this question . as "suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy" Kindly don't post misleading things at AN. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. You however have mischarcterised my merge vote at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University (note not Portal:The University of Ohio) despite my explaining to you in that discussion why that exact characterisation is wrong (and I think I've done the same in another discussion as well, but don't immediately recall which one). I know you strongly disagree with my views regarding X3, but that does not make my opinions (or those of the people who agree with me) "strange" or an "unclear understanding of policy" or any of the other negative descriptions you've repeatedly thrown at them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is now at Arbcom, WP:ARC#Portal issues, so it might be better to close this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

When you fail to get supporters for your harassment at ANi, cite the thread at ArbComm as evidence. Comedy gold. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin OhanaUnited behavior

I just closed Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals as keep as Legacypac wished to keep the comments section open for full 7 days. Yet as soon as I closed it, Legacypac challenged my close result stating that it should be "withdrawn" and not "keep" because he withdrew it as nom (which defeats the original purpose of keeping the MfD discussion open after withdrawing) as well as considering me as "involved" because I'm a member of the Portal Project. Furthermore, he said he would pursue DRV just to overturn the decision from "keep" to "withdraw by nom." (Are we truly wasting editors' time on wikilawyering?) I explained my reasoning and his logical fallacy in his reasoning. Then he became hostile and said he considers myself as involved because I signed up Portal newsletter and don't see me around at MfD... OhanaUnited 04:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP and it's pretty odd to see an Admin who never shows up around MFD jump in on a controversial early close. I'm not hostile - you are just wrong and your activity is very odd. There are a bunch of completed MfDs to close but you jump on one that is half way through? You already know it is at DRV. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not forumshop when you're the subject of the ANI that discusses your behaviour. Your repeated xenophobic comments at multiple pages questioning why an admin would close an MfD (on your talk page and at DRV) are also worrying. What your comments suggest is that admins who don't regularly close MfD shouldn't bother with (or even stay out of) MfD, pitting against one group of admins against others. This bullying behaviour has to stop. OhanaUnited 04:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I should file an ArbComm case against you for accusing me of bullying and xenophobic comments. That is a serious civility breach and unbecoming an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested the statement above by OhanaUnited be removed and the edit summary revdeled. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I don't have diffs, but having read a number of comments, it really does feel like you're personally attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you recently. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Read his accusation and edit summary and check his diffs. Completely inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited, those diffs you include do not back up your accusation of "xenophobia".Please look the word up in a dictionary,the only explanation I can see for the use of that term is that you don't know what it means.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The dictionaries won't have the correct meaning, i.e., fear of Xeno.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the behaviour is inappropriate I'm not seeing anything to support "xenophobia" in the most common meaning (fear of foreigners), Wiktionary also gives a secondary definition of "A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.". The foreigners part is almost certainly not relevant, but the comments about admins who don't regularly close MfDs could be construed as "antipathy towards strangers", as could (at a stretch) the general "if you don't agree with my opinion you are being disruptive" attitude. Even if that is what is being meant (clarification would be welcomed) I don't think it's a useful label for the current situation as it will divert attention away from the actual issues. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling me a racist is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT - it is uncivil, incorrect, demoralizing, a personal attack, and was done in response of me questioning an MFD close and, when rebuffed, taking it to DRV where other users agree the close was wrong. I've asked for the statement to be removed on the Admin's talk but that has been ignored. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which dictionary you use, Legacypac, but I didn't call you a racist. So I pulled up Merriam-Webster dictionary which says xeophobia is "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". My perception is somewhat closer to what Thryduulf said above. I said you're xenophobic because you portrayed me as an admin who don't normally close MfD as a justification to question my close. And you repeatedly convey that message. First, you directed your response towards me You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever. and then you said it again on DRV in a more thinly-veiled way I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process Your comments, to me, says that you perceive me as a foreign individual who don't frequent MfD and view me as a threat. OhanaUnited 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A very "creative" and inappropriate way of using a term that is almost exclusively a synonym for racist. Yes, I was surprised to learn you are an Admin. Yes I am surprised to see soMeone who turns out to be an Admin with a connection to WikiProject Portals come to MfD to close one single weird MfD. None of that merits you calling me xenophobic. Instead of trying to justify your outlandish incivility you should have retracted your statement and revdel'd it. Such poor judgement is inexcusable. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" is commonly used to mean "hatred of foreigners", not necessarily on a racist basis. The diffs supplied by User:OhanaUnited do not justify that WP:PA, yes it is a slur and should be retracted.Smeat75 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I appreciate OhanaUnited's response and I believe the edit summary to be accurate and not a personal attack. The fact Legacypac brought this up on OhanaUnited's talk page under the tile of "One Chance" , calling other users who are interested in portals as biased , and continuing to nominate portals for deletion even though the community's now discussing exactly what to do with them, I think there's a serious WP:OWN/battleground mentality issue on the topic of portals here, and this discussion just moves us away from the topic at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not of fan of Legacypac's conduct by any stretch of the imagination and I can understand why other users are frustrated. Nevertheless, it was absolutely inappropriate for OhanaUnited to use the term 'xenophic' in this context. Such use of the term is insensitive to those who experience real xenophobia and is a plainly wrong representation of what Legacypac actually said. That much should be made very clear. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This Admin has not backed down on the use of this slur, and has doubled down at ArbComm. They exercise very poor judgement. Done in the context of a request for WP:ADMINACCT makes this especially offensive. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't usually subscribe to "there's one law for ordinary editors and another for admins" conspiracy type theories on WP but I think if this had not been an admin who made a grotesque personal attack on another editor they would have had to retract or at least receive a rebuke from an admin. I still think User:OhanaUnited didn't actually know what the word "xenophobic" means and has had to flail about to try to find some ridiculous, unconvincing rationale for its use. Those diffs User:OhanaUnited supplies do not justify the accusation of "xenophobia", it is an absurd and offensive slur.Smeat75 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest that, for starters, OhanaUnited re-reads WP:ADMINCOND, andthen perhaps explains how accusing editors of xenophobia represents an appropriate standard...of courtesy and civility. ——SerialNumber54129 17:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree. It's not as if it were a random word choice - it was commenting specifically on the editor's perceived fear of the fact the discussion was closed by someone other than a "normal" moderator. We're making too much of this. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We're making too much of this indeed. OhanaUnited has clarified what they meant, and that they are not accusing Legacypac of being racist. OU could and should have used a different word, but by continuing to focus on it we're just taking attention away from the actual issues with Legacypac's behaviour (oh, and that OU is an admin is completely irrelevant here - a non-admin making an inadvisable word choice that was understandably misinterpreted as a person attack but actually wasn't one would not be treated any differently). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that a non-Admin would have been treater the same. Even when the offensiveness of this slur was explained to this Admin - who used the slur in context of WP:ADMINACCT, they stand by the slur and have not apologized or retracted it, nor even admitted they used the wrong word. This shows very bad judgement for any editor, and especially for an Admin. Do we have open season to broadly accuse editors of anything we feel like? Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The DRV overturned User:OhanaUnited's close which proves their complaint against me here is invalid. Now - what are we going to do about their conduct? Free pass because they are an Admin? Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac posted this diff on my talk page accusing me of supporting a personal attack. As I've described above, I do not believe OhanaUnited called Legacypac a "racist" as Legacypac claimed on my talk page, nor was the DRV technically "overturned" Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Portal:Bacon (closed). I'm very concerned with Legacypac's behaviour here, not necessarily the posting on my talk page (which I found quite odd) but more specifically this battleground mentality against OhanaUnited and portals generally, specifically because the DRV closer mentioned the nomination itself, led by Legacypac, was defective. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• The admin has responded by saying that when he called Lpac "xenophobic", he wasn't saying that Lpac was racist, just that he has a fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners. A fellow admin calls this "clarification"; I call it "doubling down on a personal attack". Tomato, tomahto, eh? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leviv ich 17:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I assure everyone I do not have a fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. SportingFlyer continues to support this smear against me even when I pointed out they should not be doing that. Indeed I withdrew the Mfd nom because the underlying article assessments by WikiProject Portals were screwy. SportingFlyer seems to have missed there is a big cleanup job around portals going on and nothing in my conduct in the cleanup rises to any kind of problem worth discussing. A non-Admin might have been blocked for making a personal attack like this, and this Admin did it in the context of WP:ADMINACCT. I want the attack removed by RevDel and an apology. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Demanding an apology never works on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't result in a sincere apology and what are the consequences if an apology is not given? Is OU going to get a block for not apologizing about a slight? It doesn't happen, to admins or regular editors. This is all deflection from the talk about portals. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I still insist on ] attacking me instead of dealing with the error the Admin made is wrong. Using a synonym for racist to discribe me is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting of MFDs

I see no reason why MFDs should not be deletion-sorted in order to publicize them more. There are fewer MFDs than AFDs, and the volunteers are able to sort the AFDs, which helps to publicize them to volunteers who are interested. It is true that MFDs have not been deletion-sorted in the past, and implementing deletion-sorting for them now should not be used to re-open any that have been closed or to slow down those that are active. Maybe sorting should also be a way to publicize the creation of portals or proposals to create portals. However, any discussion of whether to deletion-sort MFDs can be done at a policy talk page rather than here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of reopening any discussion using deletion sorting (I don't know how it could tbh). My goal, as stated above, is solely to make potentially interested editors aware of the discussions - it's not my aim to slow them down, but if it does then so what? There is no deadline and a stronger consensus will have resulted (a good thing for all concerned). 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

Except it is your aim to slow down deletion of portals as you post at the WP:X3 discussion and at MfD. It appears you want us to discuss 4500 portals one by one because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch. Anyway, I hereby award you the "lamest AN this week" barnstar. Find something better to do then mass tagging projects onto portals that will be deleted within a few days. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly explained (and others have too) I do not think they need to be discussed one-by-one and sensible, considered bundling of similar (in scope, topic and quality) nominations is a Good Thing. It would be nice for a change if you dind't keep prejudging the outcome of discussions that are still ongoing, and cease with the ad hominems ("because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch" above, this at WT:CSD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I vote on specific topics of AfD I feel competent on and would participate at MfDs if properly notified. I'm not sure this the place to change policy, but I personally see no issue with deletion sorting MfDs. I also want to express a general concern with Legacypac's conduct. I'm not sure it's uncivil, but the diffs certainly read disrespectfully. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Listing Portals does break the outline structure, but that's probably just a software thing. See Portal:Albany, California at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason why MfD can't have deletion sorting? I don't see the rush to delete all of these portals. It makes sense to consider related pages in a deletion discussion but what is the problem with further publicizing deletion discussion and getting more participation? It's not like we are working against a time deadline. Liz 03:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting might be ok or maybe not. I don't know. I've never seen it at MfD before. That is why I asked about it. The creations were done in a race against time so efforts to slow down the deletion of poorly conceived pages that the creator spent one or two minutes on are disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that despite Thryduulf's repeated requests to "merge" some of these portals, there is absolutely nothing in these portals which even can be merged, as they are utterly devoid of any content, simply pulling text (at best, they also tend to pull things like long-deleted images and the like) from articles. They can be redirected of course, in the few cases where this may be warranted. As for The Transhumanist, they claim that no older portals can ever be deleted, as the consensus at the previous portals RfC was they should not be deleted en masse. It is hard to deal with such outlandish claims (and it isn't the first instance of TTH making unreasonable claims and demands to keep any and all portals) without getting exasperated.

The community has spent countless hours debating these portals, which were created without any care or thought (as evidenced by the many utterly botched ones), and which now slowly get deleted one by one (or at best a few at a time) at MfD. All of this could have been avoided quite easily if the proposed speedy deletion had not been objected to on rather spurious or wikilawyering grounds, considering that absolutely nothing of real value is lost by deleting these. The few topics which could support a portal can have their portal recreated (with care and in a much better fashion), the speedy deletion is not a "verboten" on the portals themselves but a way (the best way by far) to deal with the mess created over the last few months by the TTH (and a few others to a much lesser degree), where TTH has gone to great lengths to defend portals, but has made little to no effort to actually check his creations and get rid of the most blatant problems, which are easily found when opening a few portals at random. Why anyone would defend these in good faith is completely unclear. Fram (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You say "spurious or wikilawyering grounds", I prefer "civil obfuscation of the issues", from earlier in the discussion, but that's semantics I guess. Anyway, the point is that anyone seeking to cause a huge amount of community time to be wasted on these pointless, embarrassing items, when little to no time or thought appears to have been invested in their creation is, either deliberately, or by missing the point entirely, advocating an extremely misguided course of action. -- Begoon 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as you are free to have your opinions, so are other people. Just because our good faith opinions do not support your desire to delete good content along with bad does not mean that we are being disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, so just "missing the point entirely", then. That's something of a relief in a way, despite not reducing the unnecessary, unwarranted burden on community time, because I was starting to wonder if it really was deliberate rather than just horribly misguided. Phew. -- Begoon 10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• That is almost an empty statement, almost … When creation of the content in question is based on personal opinion then any contribution is done in good faith, or to make a point about that as a rationale, this is not desirable in this community. And clearly the user is acting in good faith when they point the shortcomings of portals, that it is "good content" is only an opinion, accusing someone of having a "desire to delete good content" is an inch away from stating they are vandals, I am reading this wrong @Thryduulf:, or will any objector to the namespace be vulnerable to similar assertions on their motives. cygnis insignis 10:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental difference we have is that I do not see distinguishing good pages from bad pages to be a burden on community time - it might not be something you enjoy doing, but as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest as you don't have to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't, and I won't. However, once you bureaucratically force a situation in which someone has to you have diverted potentially productive community time to /dev/null. That you don't see that is why I say you are "missing the point entirely". I'm sure it's not deliberate, though... -- Begoon 10:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Thryduulf is so keen on sorting the good from the bad, when will we see them launch some MfDs on the bad ones? Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be so cynical. "as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest" See? Platitudes are easy. Accepting responsibility for spearheading a massive waste of community time - not so much. -- Begoon 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not nominated bad portals for deletion? I haven't got enough time to fairly assess all the portals nominated for deletion by others, let alone spend additional time assessing portals they haven't yet nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'fundamental difference' between portals and articles is ____ ? cygnis insignis 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I phone a friend? -- Begoon 11:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Portal issues now at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"your desire to delete good content along with bad" was claimed above. As these portals don't contain content, just code to republish content in an unsupervised way, there is no content deleted when any of these new portals is deleted. All that gets deleted is a rarely-viewed, automatically created presentation of existing content (related or unrelated to each other, the latter especially in the DYK sections), all content remains where it was. Fram (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe that barb was aimed at me. Perhaps the aimer can clarify where I ever advocated such a thing, or, you never know, just apologise. Sheesh. -- Begoon 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If by "aimer" you are referring to me, then I don't see a need to apologise for stating something which is true: You desire to see portals deleted without regard to quality. Portals contain content (that it is republished content is the whole point of portals). Some portals you wish to see deleted contain content that is bad and/or badly organised, some portals contain content that is good and/or well organised (and others contain content that is between the two, it's not black and white). Therefore what you desire is the deletion of both good and bad content. You are perfectly entitled to have this opinion, but those of us who do not share that opinion are not being disruptive simply by disagreeing with you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The TTH portals don't "contain" any content, contrary to your claim. They "display" content which is kept elsewhere. No content is deleted by deleting these portals. Twisting words to suit your purpose (like you did as well with your novel definition of "merging" at the CfDs, or like OhanaUnited did in a much worse way with their version of "xenophobic" as a synonym of "neophobic") is not a good thing, and seems to match the kind of comments and votes you argue to be stricken and sanctionable at the arb case request. Fram (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fram, the very basic misunderstanding of the nature of portals which you explain so well there is quite fundamental to this whole debate, and the issues being considered. It's alarming that it should need to be set out at all, and even more so that it needs to be explained to an admin ... but it certainly does need to be explained.

It seems to me to be a central part of the issues being considered in respect of a possible arbcom case, so please may I urge you to add something to that effect to your statement at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Fram? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor PearlSt82 - re DogsBite.org article

User:PearlSt82 is engaging in disruptive editing in pursuit of pushing a particular agenda or point of view on the single article Dogsbite.org. This has been going on for two months recently, but PearlSt82's hatred for the topic/target of the article (DogsBite.org) is documented in Misplaced Pages as far back as 2015.

On 3 Dec 2018, Dwanyewest created the article page 'DogsBite.org' (ending with 3 sentences, 13 citations). PearlSt82 immediately took it over the same day (ending with 5 sentences, 12 citations). I discovered this page in early February 2019 and found it to be a wholey disparaging, critical article.

I recommended for Speedy Deletion-G10 (19 Feb 2019). It was denied.

It got nominated for deletion based on "not notable." Keep.

I attempted to edit the article. For everything I edited, I heavily described/documented on the Talk page, but despite that PearlSt82 continued to revert and/or over-ride my edits, including reverting at least FIVE (5) of my edits in a 24 hour period on 26 Feb 2019. Those examples are rather small, but a lot of larger sections were reverted, too, on other days. I think PearlSt82 panicked when faced with a 3RR report (which I didn't do at the time).

On 25 Feb 2019, Dwanyewest tried to take this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, but it was bounced back as not an appropriate avenue.

On 4 Mar 2019, Dwanyewest suggested WP:Thirdopinion.

On 6 Mar 2019, PearlSt82 filed on "Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" but that sat for weeks with no comments and timed out on 24 Mar 2019.

I guess it automatically went to RFC (request for comment) right after that, but no one is interested in joining in this discussion because (a) it's esoteric and unless you're involved in the subject, it's confusing, and (b) the Talk page is LITTERED with voluminous discussions and comments.

Yesterday & today I attempted to re-work the article, bring in new information, and I addressed PearlSt82's most recent complaints he'd made on the Talk page. Nope. He reverted MY ENTIRE WORK. (That's not the first time he's done that.) I confess to reverting it right back, because I considered his blanket reversion to be vandalism. There's nothing in my work that is false, inflammatory or libelous, and everything I wrote was well cited. On the other hand, PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Misplaced Pages).

There has been ZERO concensus between PearlSt82 and myself (Nomopbs), and zero cooperation on PearlSt82's part. At least I've tried to bring the article closer to NPOV numerous times, but PearlSt82 keeps destroying my work or involving yet another administrative process. I suppose his intention is to wear me down or plow me under. I don't know. But no matter how softly I word my change-explanations, nothing seems to soften PearlSt82 or get any sort of cooperation whatsoever.

I have probably spent well over 10 times MORE time and effort addressing PearlSt82's complaints, edits, and reversions on this one article than I have spent doing work on the article! I am NOT exaggerating. And that level of disruptive editing is completely unacceptable.

Maybe since PearlSt82 HATES DogsBite.org, and has for so long, he should be prohibited from editing that page. I don't kow what else to do about it.

Nomopbs (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I vehemently disagree my edits are disruptive as I have made good faith efforts to gain consensus through various means. My count for my reverts on Feb 26 is 2, not 5, and I have taken all further edits regarding that series to the talk page and only have edited the article space again today. In none of my edits have I made OR, or expressed my personal opinion, but rather every edit I made has been reliably sourced, and has been a good faith reflection of the sources. Nomopbs' username appears to be an abbreviation of "No more pitbulls", and they are a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages, including dogsbite.org and Fatal dog attacks in the United States. I have no idea what they are talking about regarding libel reports. On Fatal dog attacks in the United States they have recently added a list of bulleted cherry picked primary studies without attempting to discuss or gain consensus. Their talk page comments are steeped in numerous bad faith assumptions, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and an egregious misreading of core wikipedia policies. One of the more absurd misreadings of WP policy is this edit to WP:DRN where they state that my proposed wording on dogsbite.org's history section "exposes true WP:G10 purposes". Recommend WP:BOOMERANG as user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that someone with a username like "no more pitbulls" has a WP:COI (not to bementioing being an WP:SPA) in dog related articles and shouldn't be editing them. Captain Eek ⚓ 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on a review of their contribution history, I would concur. It's highly unlikely that it represents something else. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Nomopbs: your version of the Dogsbite.org reads more like a promotional piece about the website, that the previous version. I'd suggest reverting the rewrite, and then proposing individual changes on the article talkpage. Secondly, given your username (as CatainEek spotted), and your editing-history, do you have any conflict of interest with respect to the website or the issue it advocates for? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, you guys are funny. The meaning of my username is personal and private, but I like your version. Maybe I should adopt it as my 'forward facing' persona. Anyone who has reviewed my edits on Fatal dog attacks in the United States could easily see that I give equal attention to fatalities caused by non-pit bull dogs as by pit bulls. If more of the entries are about pit bulls, it's because there are more deaths by pit bulls, apparently. That's not my fault; I report it like I see it. So y'all know, I do not have a website or an organization about pit bulls (pro or con), I do not work for any organization, I'm not paid by anyone to do what I do in Misplaced Pages, nor even encouraged. I get a lot of flak about it from my friends because I jumped in with both feet, barely come up for air... but I haven't yet drowned. It's how I am with topics I'm intensely interested in. I've been using Misplaced Pages for years but didn't know anyone could sign up to be an editor until last fall. I've been through some learning curves and feel pretty confident about my grasp of the policies at this point. PearlSt82 has been a trial by fire, though. No one should have to fight a diehard like that as a novice wiki editor. I got interested in the deaths and discovered that the wiki page Fatal dog attacks in the United States was missing about half of the fatalities. I set about locating information on the missing ones and adding them. I wanted a complete list. I liked that the wiki page was a summary of everything all in one place. (Should have been, if for the fact it was missing half the deaths.) I didn't realize I was going to get sucked into an entire world of controversy. Sure, I used the website dogsbite.org as a research tool, but it isn't the only resource I used. Now I've moved on to the academic/scientific/medical studies in order to identify the causes and possible solutions to the problem. At least I'm trying to move on but keep getting sucked back into this. Nomopbs (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• While revisiting the talk page and the glut of new comments, I did notice something interesting that may provide some insight into COI. On February 25th, I pointed out that the term "science whores" was still on a dogsbite.org branded website, which at the time contained a large banner at the top that says "The Maul Talk Manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org and authored by members of our community", a the "dogsbite.org term" metatag as well as a "sponsored by dogsbite.org" banner on the right side. Nomopbs responded here by saying that the comment was "posted 9-years ago by someone else on a blog that is now an archive and not active". If you now look at the live version of the site, all mentions of dogsbite.org have been scrubbed - the top banner, the right nav, and the "dogsbite.org term" metatag are all gone. As the site was inactive for 9 years, I find it very hard to believe that its just coincidence this material was removed just a few weeks after the discussion about the term and how reliable sources discuss the term took place. Its certainly circumstantial, but would suggest to me some form off-wiki coordination and COI. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking over this for fifteen minutes, This edit suggests basic misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy. It removes citation of a news article that details problems with the site's data collection (to be sure, the nitpicks do sound minor - if they hand-pick half a dozen cases and they include things like somebody getting killed by a car while fleeing from two pit bulls, I don't see that as tremendously wrong. Also inevitable selection bias) The edit summary says Opinion piece cited violated NPOV and directly refutes actual facts in the case. See http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/two-pit-bulls-maul-a-helpless-man/article49136.html. Now it should be totally clear that sources cannot violate NPOV, only editors. And editors violate NPOV when they play at saying "this source is wrong, this source is right" rather than including both sources and describing their contradictions! This one is not much better, deleting a newspaper's editorial in its own voice saying "WP:RS". The dispute apparently began on Pit bull, where in June 2018 PearlSt82 made this reversion of this edit by User:Michaelandsandy (pinging in case they can tell us more about the past history here) and reinserted a blanket statement that pit bulls are not any more dangerous than any other kind of dog. This may be one of the reversions mentioned by Nomopbs on the dogsbite talk page. Odd part is PealSt82 ended up removing a very old but relevant page of statistics to support his own argument (i.e. the CDC found that Rottweilers caused more fatalities in the mid-90s) here because it was in the wrong place in the article. I am suspicious that this was indeed a dispute predating the article, with strong opinions on both sides, however, those two edits by Nomopbs clearly misinterpret policy. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: Re dispute predating the article: I don't follow the pit bull article and have never edited it. Nor have I bothered to check revisions of the pit bull article. I didn't join as a wiki editor until Nov 2018, so anything that went on over there last summer was never on my radar and was not anything I was referring to in Talk:DogsBite.org. Neither did PearlSt82 come on my radar until I discovered the Dogsbite.org article (Feb 2019). Indeed, the entirety of the Talk:DogsBite.org page is only 38 days old. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: As for the lowellsun.com citation, it was removed by me once and also removed by another editor, or maybe two. I think for a total of three times. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked over PearlSt82's edits again, and I didn't see anything really problematic. There doesn't appear to be a WP:3RR vio, nor does it seem like an edit war. They have been civil, and they have interacted on the talk page thoroughly. I think that the more problematic editor here is Nomopbs. Take for example this edit, showing a less than civil interaction. Or Talk:Dogsbite.org#Article_lacks_Neutral_Point_of_View, where Nomopbs seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I don't forsee this ending with a censuring of PearlSt82; I think their conduct has been admirable considering the situation. Rather I say that this matter either boomerang on Nomopbs with probably a topic ban, or the matter dropped. Captain Eek ⚓ 22:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

And yet, Captain Eek, you fail to notice that PearlSt82 obtained a Template:Uw-3rr WARNING on his Talk page for EDIT WARRING on said Dogsbite.org page on February 27, 2019. I, myself, didn't notice it was there until recently. Nomopbs (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• If anything, this should boomerang on Nomopbs. Their characterization of the situation strikes me as completely disingenuous. This seems to be the event they refer to where PearlSt82 'destroyed' their work. However that work involved deleting (one might say 'destroying') what appears to be a meticulously sourced 'Criticism' section. PearlSt82's reversion was equal parts removing newly added content and restoring previous content, which is not the impression given by Nomopbs's statement.

Looking at the talk page, the only incivility I see is from Nomopbs. Thrice they accuse editors of "wasting everyone's time". Their responses in discussions often come off as combative or sarcastic: "OMG, are you kidding me?", "LOL. There's nothing untrue about that statement", "I guess you can't be assuaged. Unless it's YOUR words, you're not going to like it." The other editors involved in the article have behaved with what seems to me an admirable level of patience and cool tempers. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs' edit history on Misplaced Pages (versus PearlSt82's ad hominem attacks)

Let's look at wiki's statistics (editor contributions), instead of simply jumping on PearlSt82's bandwagon and adding to his smearing my wiki reputation with an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem: is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

PearlSt82 asserts that I'm anti pit bull, however...

• PearlSt82's wiki statistics show that PearlSt82 has made 108 edits to the Pit bull page, 44 to Dogsbite.org (whom P considers is anti-pit bull), and the rest mainly to "men's rights movement" type pages.

• Nomopbs' wiki statistics show I have made 290 edits to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page, 40 to Dogsbite.org and a bunch of miscellany. I have made ZERO edits to the pit bull page, and just 6 edits (link maintenance) to the American Pit Bull Terrier page.

So tell me... Which editor is looking like a pit bull advocate? And which editor is NOT looking anti-pit bull?

Destructive editing:

• Going backwards in time, the last 8 edits PearlSt82 made to the pit bull page were REVERTS, earlier was 2 contributions, 3 reverts, 1 contribution, 3 reverts, then 2 contributions.
• PearlSt82's last biggest contribution on that page was the removal of 11,612 characters, an entire section of 'studies about pit bulls', the majority of which pointed to them being dangerous and implicated them in a higher percentage of attacks than their population percentage indicated. That was in 2016.
• PearlSt82 did the same thing in 2015.

That's a lot of destruction and not a lot of construction.

Whether or not the reverts were warranted isn't my point. What I'm saying is that in the last three years, PearlSt82 destroyed/removed/reverted more than he contributed (on the pit bull topic). Why? Are the majority of his 108 edits even more years back when he established the page and now he's taken ownership of it (WP:OWN) and is guarding the pit bull article against all comers who might say something unflattering about pit bulls? Scroll further to see the full extent of PearlSt82's reversions on the pit bull page: What you'll see is a long series of reverts. Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"?

The article Dogsbite.org, though created by editor Dwanyewest, was immediately taken over by PearlSt82. Every single one of his edits contributes only to "criticism" of DogsBite.org as an organization. He has contributed nothing constructive or even neutral. He has railed against all of my contructive or neutral edits on that page. A little bit about DogsBite.org (based on what I see in their website and have read about online): they collect information on fatal dog attacks, they post statistics about such attacks, post that pit bulls are the majority breed involved, post proposed solutions to the pit bull problem including breed specific legislation, and it could be said they are anti-pit bull. Considering PearlSt82's edits on the pit bull page, and the POV you can conclude from those edits, I can see why he must only write criticism on the DogsBite.org article. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't excuse his reversions, nor his disruptive editing against me.

Constructive editing:

On the other hand, I have been a heavy contributor to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States article. My edits have been "constructive" (adding text), rather than "destructive" (removing text) or "inhibitive" (reverting). And I don't discriminate between incidents with pit bulls versus non pit bulls. Here is my log of edits to the fatalities pages, just search for "added victim" (from the edit summary column). The last 10 additions I made of victims (in reverse chronological order) were deaths caused by the breeds Rottweiler, Rottweiler, Unspecified, Pits & mixes, Presa Canario, Great Dane, American Bulldog, Pit mix, Pit bull, and German Shepherd. I have added 158,203 bytes to that article and deleted 9,666 bytes (less than 1% of my addition count). Now THAT is a lot of work. If I hated pit bulls, wouldn't I have been adding only fatalities caused by pit bulls (to increase the percentages)? Wouldn't I have quit spending so much time researching, getting citations and writing new entries for fatalities caused by non-pit bulls? It takes about 30 minutes of work for each single fatality I add, and I've added dozens, maybe even a 100 by now. I have been a valuable contributor to Misplaced Pages on this topic. The fatalities page got so long, someone split it in half (made another page). And then later split it again. So now there are three wiki pages to cover all the fatalies by dog in the USA.

Anyone who spent 5 minutes looking into (not 'at') my contributions/edit history would have seen my neutral POV with respect to pit bulls. If my agenda was to push an anti-pit bull POV, then I would have been done with my work on the Fatalities page long ago. This disruption by PearlSt82 re Dogsbite.org is just a sideline distraction that is keeping me from my real work.

Disruptive editing:

PearlSt82 only used an ad hominem personal attack to get me out of his way, to try to get me banned for WP:SPA or WP:COI, and to try to get sympathetic support for his viewpoint against me (to obtain a false concensus; not based on facts). PearlSt82 accused me above of being "a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages." However, there is no evidence that I have made ANY anti-pit bull edits, NOR ANY pro BSL edits. He has failed to support his claims. His 'smoke and mirrors' contribute to my claim that PearlSt82 has been WP:DISRUPTIVE (as he was in 2015 on this very same subject!).

Four years ago, PearlSt82 displayed in great detail his disruptive behavior about DogsBite.org in a 2015 discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard. It involved EIGHT OTHER wiki editors (User:Epeefleche, User:AndyTheGrump, User:EvergreenFir, User:Blueboar, User:DrFleischman, User:GRuban, User:Arkon, User:RightCowLeftCoast) and no one took PearlSt82's side. PearlSt82 was combative, refusing to get their points, continued to argue "content" instead of RS, and wasn't interested in concensus. For whatever reason, or for no reason whatsoever, PearlSt82 is rabidly opposed to DogsBite.org, and has been since at least 2015. Which is why I groan when PearlSt82 posts (for the umpteenth time) about trying to get concensus on the issue today, when his opinions and behavior towards THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT hasn't changed in four years despite other editors chiming in.

When is enough enough? When will the disruption end?

Nomopbs (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior I was referring to in my initial response. I find this bit: Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"? particularly telling, as this is the exact same line of thought Dogsbite.org has been criticized for by RS, and is what Nomopbs has objected to, in part calling it libel. In light of this libel accusation on the talk page after the ANI report was filed, I'm a bit concerned by this phrase in Nomopbs' initial ANI filing: PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Misplaced Pages) - what do they mean when they say "at least two" reports? How do they arrive at a figure of multiple filed reports, but an indeterminate number? Are they saying that they themselves have filed multiple reports? Or do they know of others that have filed reports? If the latter, how do they know this? PearlSt82 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The evidence, the proof

Apparently I have been unable to adequately explain what is going on, because of the esoteric nature of the "content". So today, I undertook research to identify the types and patterns of edits made by PearlSt82, without getting involved in specific content issues. The primary patterns I saw were "revert or remove" and "state critical opinions about DogsBite.org on Talk pages".

Reverts/removals in general:

On PearlSt82's top 9 edited pages, P totaled 286 edit. 163 (57%) were reverts/removals.

• Pit bull: Out of 108 edits, at least 53 (49%) were reverts/removals.
• Dogsbite.org: Out of 44 edits, at least 12 (27%) were reverts/removals.
• Men's rights movement: 32 edits, 28 (88%) of those are reverts/removals.
• Roosh V: 25 edits, 15 (60%) are reverts/removals. One "Nominated for deletion".
• Fatal dog attacks in the United States: Out of 20 edits, 13 (65%) were reverts/removals.
• Masculinism: 17 edits. 14 (82%) reverts/removals.
• A Voice for Men: 17 edits. 11 (65%) reverts/removals.
• Breed-specific legislation: Out of 13 edits, 10 (77%) involved reverts/removals.
• Manosphere: 10 edits. 7 (70%) reverts/removals.

This pattern of heavy reverts violates Misplaced Pages's editor policies about reverts (why, why not, when, and how). In summary, reversions are considered to be hostile, drive away editors, and make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant. WP:ONLYREVERT There is a whole slew of wiki guidelines on how better to make changes than to revert, including Alternatives to reversion.

Deliberately seeking out mentions of DogsBite.org in Misplaced Pages (to remove):

• On a single day (Jan 18, 2017) PearlSt82 made exactly 7 edits. ALL of them were to remove references to DogsBite.org from all around Misplaced Pages, including 5 removals from Fatal dog attacks in the United States , 1 from Greyhound , and 1 from Dog fighting .

• One of those 7 removals had been there for 9 months, created on April 18, 2016 .

• On the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page that PearlSt82 had made 20 edits and 13 were reverts/removals, 9 out of 13 were in order to remove DogsBite.org as a citation or when it was mentioned.

• Three of the reverts on the pit bull page were remarked as being to remove DogsBite.org as a citation.

Talk pages, vilifying DogsBite.org:

Considering the dearth of actual constructive edits, on the other hand the Talk pages are filled with lots of commentary about why this or that should be removed or this or that should be a certain way. According to WP:TALK "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

• On the pit bull Talk page, PearlSt82 vilifies DogsBite for the last SIX YEARS: 31 January 2013, 17 February 2014, 20 April 2015 X 3, 25 January 2017, 2 July 2018.

• On the Talk page for Fatal dog attacks in the United States, PearlSt82 vilifies DogsBite.org: 22 April 2015, 28 September 2015

• The entirety of P's discussion on Talk:Dogsbite.org is critical of DogsBite.org. In fact, the article was created as a criticism piece, and it wasn't until I came along that anyone tried to bring it towards NPOV.

PearlSt82 publishes his opinions of DogsBite.org:

Do you really think someone with these opinions could possibly maintain any sense of NPOV while editing the Dogsbite.org article?

• "Dogsbite.org is a anti-Pit bull, pro-Breed Specific Legislation advocacy group. They have a vested interest in skewing statistics regarding dog bite fatalities in order to make pit bulls look more dangerous than they are"

• "I disagree that my views on dogsbite.org is personal opinion. It is a fact dogsbite.org is not peer reviewed. It is a fact that it is self published. It is a fact that Colleen Lynn, the sole operator of dogsbite.org has no credentials in veterinary science, animal behavior or other related matters that would make her reliable for quoting these kinds of statistics from. It is also fact that HuffPo wrote an article which I quoted above that labels Lynn and Merritt Clifton as academic frauds. If you look at the data on Lynn's website, its mostly circular citations with Merritt Clifton."

• "Yes, what DBO is doing here is tabulating their own research based on the media reports they've surveyed."

• "My labeling of dogsbite.org as fringe is absolutely NOT POV."

• "... Lynn's lack of credentials, stating Colleen Lynn is a menace; she's a web designer who was once bitten by a dog, and has been on a vicious campaign to eliminate the pit bull type ever since. Still, she makes no pretense to academic credibility."

• "... a fringe and discredited organization like dogsbite.org"

• "a pro-BSL site which intentionally skews dog bite fatality statistics"

• "dogsbite.org ... is a self published source run by non-veterinary professionals who intentionally skew statistics."

• "... these statistics are impossible to outline with any degree of certainty"

• "their conclusions are refuted by reputable organizations"

• "Other organizations do not make such statistics, because such information is unknowable."

• "Colleen Lynn and Merrit Clifton have no professional or academic experience in animal behavior, statistics and epidemology, Clifton intentionally misrepresents his academic credentials, and DogsBite.org and Clifton are given false balance by many media outlets as their opinion carrying the same weight as the CDC and AVMA"

• "... and its citation of unreliable and biased sources such as dogsbite.org"

• "How is this not a fringe organization?"

• "I think this is absolutely not reliable information. Dogsbite.org is a self published source which has been known to skew its statistics. It is run by a single person, Colleen Lynn, who has no professional experience in animal behavior. It is not peer reviewed. All of their dog bite statistics come from media reports"

• "How would we approach without running afoul of NPOV and BLP when discussing Lynn?"

Does anyone still think the author of the above statements could possibly edit the Dogsbite.org article with a neutral point of view? I can only conclude that this person must have some sort of vested interest. No one would spend six years making absolutely sure that nothing is ever said positive about a single small organization unless they saw themselves as some sort of competitor (like National Canine Research Council) or they work for one of the large pit bull advocacy organizations such as Animal Farm Foundation, Best Friends Animal Society, etc. Not even someone with a personal grudge against Lynn could cook up the lengthy and detailed arguments against her work like PearlSt82 has done. The hours and weeks P must have spent on this over the years. Oh my! (And I had to go get myself sucked into the quicksand of this rivalry. Beating myself up now for getting involved.)

To sum it up:

I accidentally encountered PearlSt82 when I tried to edit the Dogsbite.org article. Working with, or around, PearlSt82 has been excruciating. Apparently I could not adequately explain to others what was going on. I hope that this summary of P's edits has sufficiently shown that P has been engaged in DISRUPTIVE EDITING for a very long time, and specifically on the subject of DogsBite.org — though not disruptive exclusively towards DogsBite, but also as a general pattern of his type of editing. Considering P's documented focused attacks on the target DogsBite for an extended period of time (six years) without break, PearlSt82 should be banned or blocked from editing the Dogsbite.org article.

Nomopbs (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as a WP:STICK wall of text, misunderstanding policy and mischaracterizing my edits. I again strongly disagree that any of my edits constitute as being disruptive. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with PearlSt82. This is a true wall of text, and this horse feels pretty well flogged. I did go through however and read this large block of text. While reverting shouldn't be the main way of editing, many editors still do revert a great deal. Why you brought up Pearls non-dog edits seems to be confusing the issue. Deliberately removing DogsBites mentions? Thats no crime, and in fact I support Pearl's edits in that area: per WP:BLOGS, a website like DogsBite is hardly a reliable source. On talk pages: reading through the talk page, I see no egregious problems. If you'd like to provide specific diffs or sections, please do. I hardly find evidence of them "villifying" DogsBite. And from what I can see, they don't seem wildly or unfairly prejudiced against DogsBite. They claim that its a fringe source, and I think they may be right. Its certainly not a reliable source. Perhaps that issue would be better raised at the RS noticeboard. Their view that DogsBite isn't reliable seems backed, or at least not just their opinion.

At this point, I see that there is a clear issue between PearlSt82 and Nomopbs. Perhaps an WP:IBAN is in order? Otherwise, I say that Nomopbs should probably step back from Dog articles (with a topic ban if necessary). PearlSt82 could also step back, but their edits do not seem overly problematic to me. That, or per WP:STICK, this horse is well and truly flogged, you should both accept that this thing is over, and maybe stop editing the article and go find another article to work on. Captain Eek ⚓ 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: That you think "heavy on the reverting" is okay as an editor's pattern of activity shows a weak grasp of the wiki guidelines about reverting and how repetitious and heavy-handed reversions do represent disruptive editing. Nomopbs (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: I didn't say that. I agree that reverting should not be the main way of editing, and I would warn PearlSt82 to familiarize themselves with the ins and outs of reversion, and to revert only when necessary. Captain Eek ⚓ 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Biased and Improper Conduct by User:Ad Orientem (self reporting)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diligens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been accused of improper conduct. by Diligens and I place my actions before the community for review. The immediate issue stems from warnings I gave to Diligens for violation of WP:NPA here. This was in response to this edit on the article The Singing Nun which in turn was the most recent edit in an edit war between Diligens and Contaldo80. Subsequently I issued warnings to both editors regarding their edit warring and locked the article for 48 hrs. There followed a discussion on User talk:Diligens which eventually migrated to User Talk:Ad Orientem that I think may be worth reviewing in its entirety.

For background, this is merely the latest chapter in an ongoing content dispute revolving around whether and how to address allegations of homosexuality in The Singing Nun. This first popped up on my radar in early February (see link below) when Diligens sought my opinion on the issue with a question that was framed as a hypothetical.

• First contact where Diligens presented a question with relevant details omitted and asked my opinion on including allegations that "most of the world considers dispicable, like an alcoholic or thief."

There followed a brief discussion and then I found myself drawn into the discussion on Talk:The Singing Nun. I regret that the discussion is lengthy. During the course of the discussion I offered advice and opinions to an extent that I believe I became WP:INVOLVED. My participation ended on the 15th of February, approximately six weeks ago. Whether or not that is enough time to remove the taint of INVOLVED is perhaps closer than I would like. If the community believes it is too close, I am more than happy to step back entirely from this article.

A review of the discussion will show that there was some heated back and forth including accusations of bad faith editing and so on. At the end of my involvement I advised Diligens that I believed they should step away from the article.

Some final thoughts: I believe Diligens is well intentioned but their editing history appears tendentious. In particular I think their obvious hostility to homosexuality is coloring their editing to an unacceptable degree. That is not to say that I think their concerns are baseless. As I stated back in February the question of sexual preference is one around which the community has consistently chosen to tread very carefully. But that question is merely background to the issues I am laying before the community here. In my opinion Diligens has raised enough red flags in their editing on this article to cause me to support some kind of topic ban. Probably the most narrow would apply only to The Singing Nun. A broader one might cover the topic of homosexuality broadly construed.

If the community concludes that I have in any way erred in my own conduct, I bow to its judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• What??? EEng 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going to say what EEng has to say but much less concisely. Having read everything, where do you think you erred? SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't (conceding that some might say six weeks is cutting it close for INVOLVED). But Diligens made accusations after being cautioned more than once about their editing and frankly I think this needs to be looked at by other experienced editors. Admins generally can't impose Tbans unilaterally (rare ACDS exceptions conceded). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I fail to see how an uninvolved admin would've handled it differently. So, a trout? Or maybe just a minnow? Regarding Diligens...there are red flags for sure, but I would err on the side of ROPE for now. The situation definitely needs an rfc/input from fresh peeps TelosCricket (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC) I struck the trout/minnow as withdrawn. TelosCricket (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Appendum I'm revising my position: I fully agree there was no wrong doing on Ad Orientem's part. The trout/minnow was a jest and has been withdrawn. TelosCricket (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's what needs to happen, in my opinion:

1. The article needs to be unprotected immediately; we shouldn't have a wiki article with the blatantly POV header "False Rumors" (that the rumors were false is unproven and POV), not even for 48 hours.
2. The version prior to Diligens' edit war needs to be restored.
3. Diligens needs to be warned that any further personal aspersions or attacks will lead to an immediate block.
4. Diligens needs to be reported to WP:ANEW if he reverts again.
5. Discussion needs to proceed only on article talk, never usertalk.
6. If necessary, an RfC can be started.
7. An admin who is not a practicing Catholic (of any stripe) should be handling this.
8. If Diligens continues to be disruptive regarding the article, then a new ANI thread should be opened regarding a TBan.

--Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse, the hell, me! What are you implying, that a Catholic editor can not edit certain articles? Are you sure you want to travel down that road? Is this true for all religions? Then Jewish editors shouldn't handle Jewish-related or sensitive articles/disputes and Muslims shouldn't voice their opinion about Muslim-related articles/disputes and so forth? How do you define "practicing"? Should we believe the same about political allegiances? Democrats shouldn't negotiate disputes about Democratic candidates because they can't be impartial? Talk about casting aspersions! I'm going to edit another page now before I say something I later regret. Liz 03:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not say or imply any of that. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you say a Catholic admin shouldn't handle this dispute? I am a Catholic and have many gay Catholic friends. This isn't 50 years ago. Liz 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Because that is my opinion, as I clearly stated, regarding this dispute. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Aside from that reasoning being a slippery slope, how would any user prove they are or are not Catholic? And, conversely, how you could prove that was or was not true? 331dot (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think SL's point 7 is within reason. Catholics are, necessarily, pro-Catholicism and thus have a POV on Catholic subject articles. This gives, at the very least the appearance of, a COI for a pro-Catholic admin to take admin actions on Catholic subject articles. Hence, someone without a POV or COI should be handling the admin actions. What are you implying, that a Catholic editor can not edit certain articles? <- you need to re-read what SL wrote, Liz, if that's what you read from n admin who is not a practicing Catholic (of any stripe) should be handling this. You're free to edit the article as much as you like within the bounds of WP policy and guideline, but I'd caution against using your tools there. To answer your counter-example: an admin that is registered to the DNC should not be using their tools in Democrat/Republican disputes because they have an apparent COI. That does not mean, and SL has not suggested that it does mean, that they can't edit the topic area or engage in dispute resolution at all. On a separate note, I kinda like the Wiki prayer ubox on your userpage – even as an atheist. I may borrow it. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly object to the notion that a Catholic admin shouldn't get involved in perform admin actions involving Catholic subjects—that seems as ludicrous a stretch as it would be to insist that LGBT admins not deal with LGBT topics. Cheers, gnu57 14:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Not what I said. I advised against using the tools to officiate, not against getting involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a distinction without a difference to me- and my questions above still stand. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec)It's interesting to see your report, Ad Orientem, because I had already read the two conversations (but not the entire article talk page) and was about to protect the article but saw that you had already done so. I think this is an obvious step to take, whether you were involved or not. This dispute has been going on for weeks and will continue to erupt until it is resolved on the talk page, probably through an RfC. I think it is admirable that you reported yourself but, in this case, I think you are not guilty of anything. Liz 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I'm eyerolling at how offtrack that talk page discussion kept getting. I'm also confused as to why they spent so long arguing over an interview about a book instead of discussing the book, but I guess no one had it / could read it. But I don't think you got yourself permanently involved. Maybe if you had blocked someone then and there, but you were just trying to focus the debate and telling everyone a fairly straightforward summary of policy. I don't see that interaction is permanently involving you. You were, in fact, aggressively neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe that Ad Orientem is involved with respect to the dispute at The singing nun, or that any of their recent actions even deserve a trout. Their participation on the article talkpage was in the form of informing and guiding editors about the relevant wikipedia policies and did not display a bias with respect to the content of edit-dispute. Admins, if anything, should be encouraged to take this approach and not just rely on issuing warnings and blocks from the fear of being perceived as being involved. Diligens's conduct, on the other hand, does need to be reviewed. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have informed Diligens of the Gamergate-related discretionary sanctions assuming that "any gender-related dispute or controversy... broadly construed" encompass sexuality (please let me know if I am wrong about that interpretation). Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• ’’’Comment’’’ as one of the editors involved in this article I do not believe that ad orientam has any reason to admonish themself. They have been nothing but courteous and professional. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry you're in this unreasonable situation, Ad Orientem, it's never fun. Reviewing the situation, it seems the root of the problem is quite clearly that Diligens is a tendentious editor with baseline competence problems. They blatantly personally attacked Contaldo80, a highly-established, long-term editor in good standing, and proceeded to employ the "it's not a PA if it's true" defense, which is clearly not applicable in this situation. That sentiment, that one can engage in negative personal commentary when expressing legitimate grievances with supporting evidence, obviously only applies to formal behavioral complaints in an appropriate forum, with supporting diffs. It does not give one license to say "You are proven to be one of the biggest liars and violators" in an edit summary during a content dispute, simply because one feels they've been misrepresented on the talk page. On that note, examining the talk page, I do not see any blatant behavioral issues from Contaldo, only an experienced exasperatedly pointing out how unreasonable and unhinged Diligens is being. Therefore, AO's warning was not only entirely appropriate, but rather cut-and-dried. Diligens aggressive response to the straightforwardly-justified NPA warning brings up further CIR concerns, and both AO's block threat and Softlavender's proposed solution going forward seem to be completely in-bounds. I don't understand Liz's offense here. Requesting an admin who does not have a potentially-inherent COI (i.e. a practicing Catholic admin sorting a dispute regarding a stigmatic allegation against a Catholic nun) is not particularly unreasonable, and if one is so severely offended by that suggestion, then one is likely not the impartial admin to be dealing with the situation. While it may not happen in this thread, I would be in favor of a straight-up indef for Diligens. If that does not come to be, please submit an AE report upon the slightest continuation of disruption, now that the AE awareness criteria are satisfied, and we will not hesitate to impose AE restrictions. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you call it, Swarm, when a person double-quotes me as saying something that I didn't say (wasn't even a paraphrase) in order to make it look like I cussed him out when I did nothing of the sort? It's called an egregious lie. You make it look like you read the conversation, but you sure missed a most crucial point. --Diligens (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think that it is exemplary that Ad Orientem has requested an independent review of their use of administrative tools. I see no misuse. I have been aware of this content dispute for some time. This was an incredibly talented and unique woman who came to a tragic end. She was a complex person not a plaster saint and our biography must accurately summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about her life, per WP:,NPOV, a core content policy. Efforts to either whitewash or denounce her are disruptive. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Lourdes 07:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: wut^^^ ——SerialNumber54129 15:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• This here issue is supposed to be about Ad Orientem and his handling one PA, nothing else; this is not about the article in dispute. I read PA, and it clearly mentions if there is evidence it is not PA, and it must also be a repeated thing. Ad Orientem jumped the gun, and DID NOT ask for evidence, nor did he wait the patient amount of time for it to even be repeated. I merely said something once off-hand in an edit summary, and BAM! Nothing here convinces me that he didn't handle this PA issue correctly. I don't hold it against him as if this is a WP law case or something, I merely mentioned it to him for his own personal use to help him handle PA better next time. I am done with that. I also thanked Ad Orientem just previous to that and told him I would pursue RfC about the editing issue. And, I will pursue it. WP is FOREMOST about "common sense", which is said to rule even over Reliable Sources. It's absolutely against common sense to blindly stand ground upon RS against reason. RS is not simply a "ticket" to what one wants. --Diligens (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• This editor is a Master Editor IV and is entitled to display this Orichalcum Editor Star.

     User:Softlavender is a Master Editor IV, as attested by the userboxen on her user page. Therefore
    1. when she says that Ad Orientem is a Catholic, this is an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
    2. when she says that The Singing Nun was a lesbian, this is an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
    3. if she would come saying that her previous post was rather strange, and against quite all of the letter soup, this would be an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
  What about a self trout? Pldx1 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "when she says that Ad Orientem is a Catholic" -- I never said that. "when she says that The Singing Nun was a lesbian" -- I never even remotely said or implied that. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wouldn't self sturgeon be more appropriate? He can't get off that easy... Dawnseeker2000 14:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Massive Trout for the self reporter Ad Orientem navel gazing is too fine an expression for this trivia of a text wall. An admin should well understand what this page is actually for, This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems his bringing this concern here prematurely is a dereliction of his duty to resolve disputes and respond to complaints without unnecessary escalation.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Govindaharihari: if that was a joke, it wasn't funny. If you're serious, you must not have read the above or if you have just dismissed it. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have read the above, my comment is not a joke. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Uh, wow. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Alright, let's just do this: We can all choose our own fish and just have at him Private pyle style. Dawnseeker2000 20:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

How about John Cleese style? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Even better, lol! 🐟 Dawnseeker2000 18:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Break

• Some observations and comments
  • It appears that the community has concluded my actions were not improper and were within my discretion as an administrator, for which I am very grateful.
  • A number of editors above have gone further, expressing serious concerns about Diligens editing.
  • Although I did not put much emphasis on it in my opening summary, I remain convinced that Diligens' editing has been tendentious. His two comments on this thread have only reinforced that belief.
  • While Swarm suggested an indefinite block, I am thinking that some sort of topic ban might be in order.

Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are jumping the gun. I have not yet presented my case at RfC. And the issue has not been presented well here. --Diligens (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is indef territory, though I am still very concerned about the editing patterns, and the wikilawyering to say the personal attacks (and looking at the contribution history, Diligens repeatedly called another editor a "biased troublemaker disrupter") were justified. I'm not prepared to suggest a sanction, though - I'm somewhere between warning with next strike an indef (if the tendentious editing continues during the RfC Diligens has proposed) and a topic ban. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion the section False Rumors of lesbianism should entirely be removed. The subject of the article denied lesbianism. I feel that speculation about lesbianism does not belong in this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop, your statement belongs on the talkpage of the article. ANI is not the place to debate content -- it is for discussing user conduct. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Remember: at ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 06:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• OK, Softlavender. Sorry 'bout that. (My post is already on the article Talk page.) Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile - It appears that Diligens has violated 1RR and Enhanced BRD (albeit prior to warning) at Fox News. O3000 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting Diligens' editing history:

• 406 edits between December 2005 and June 2006 – during which he was involved in ongoing disruption – see this archive where he declares himself "a very active traditional Catholic" (which might explain his recent behaviour) and was warned and blocked by JzG for edit warring.
• 35 edits in 2007
• 1 edit in July 2012
• 262 edits since January 2019 – disruption similar in style / approach as to that demonstrated in 2006

Ordinarily, such long ago edits would be ancient history, but with so few edits and similarities of style, I think it's worth noting. Diligens, I doubt anything will happen now unless you start campaigning again, but please recognise that WP functions on consensus and your approach, both back in 2006 and recently, is neither helpful nor appropriate. By all means, present source-based facts, discuss edits, persuade others... but if consensus disagrees with your view, try to accept it even if you can't respect it. EdChem (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Full support for the comment from Ed Chem. Diligens please be aware your contributions are considered by multiple users to be a bit controversial and and please back away from contoversy or I am certain you will be restricted. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Glory be to God for the Golden Pill Soeur Sourire (The Singing Nun)

• The Singing Nun article says: Increasingly frustrated at what she perceived to be the Catholic Church's failure to fully implement the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, she released a song in 1967 defending the use of contraception, called "Glory be to God for the Golden Pill". This led to an intervention by the Catholic hierarchy in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and one of her concerts was cancelled. Several major tour venues subsequently cancelled and the tour was effectively derailed.
  Do you really think that all these "progressive writers" will circle the wagons and make some hype around and defend the Golden Pill ? They have other things to do! Their only concern is about "what was she doing with her crucifix behind her closed curtains" ? Let us apply the duck test: who is the most probable papist secret agent, someone branded as a Traditional Catholic in 2006 (for those having difficulties with their maths, this is ${\displaystyle 2019-2006=13}$ years ago) or those that are using any speculation (probably, says page 33) to derail the article ? Glory be to all those who fight for free access to contraception, and the right to abort if one has to. Pldx1 (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/131650535
2. Jenkins, Philip (2007). God's Continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe's Religious Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195313956.
3. Heneghan, Tom (29 April 2009). ""Sister Smile" film tells sad story of the Singing Nun". Blogs.reuters.com. Retrieved 18 August 2015.

.

Pldx1, this is not the page to discuss article content, though I am sure multiple perspectives would be welcomed at the article talk page. As for here, if you can't see why someone who identifies as a Traditionalist Catholic (rejecting Vatican II, etc) might hold views that end up causing disruption relating to that page and to The Singing Nun article – and thus could benefit from advice to respect consensus – then I have serious doubts about you having anything useful to contribute to this discussion. EdChem (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear EdChem. I am not discussing the content of any article, I am discussing policy. We are supposed to write an Encyclopedia. This implies ACTSC: Any Conspiracy Theory has to be Self-Coherent. In April 1967, Soeur Sourire said the Beatles are better known than Christ in the world today. And also the already quoted Glory be to God for the Golden Pill. This backfired into the Traditionalist Catholic equation women=devil=lesbian=witches=burn_them_all and an horrible harassment campaign with cancelled concerts, undue back taxes recovering, forfeiture of their own stage name and so on, campaign that largely contributed to their final decision of taking their lives. That was the Traditionalist Catholic way of doing. Therefore describing someone who substantially says "don't be a part of this lynching mob and don't add your stone to this killing" as a part of Traditionalist Catholic conspiracy is not only against the Assume Good Faith motto. This is also against ACTSC. Why is there a women gap ? Perhaps a simple question of decency. Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If that's a discussion of policy, it's completely incoherent, except for the apparent suggestion that EdChem is lacking in decency (and therefore driving away women editors), which seems like a personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pldx1, I did not intend to suggest or imply any grand conspiracy, and am very surprised to read your line of reasoning. I am not the one who described Diligens as a traditional Catholic (in the traditionalist Catholicism sense), that was a disclosure that Diligens made in the talk page archive I linked to earlier. Diligens' style in that archive struck me as very similar to in the present case and since that was from the last time Diligens made a substantive WP contribution, I saw that as potentially relevant to note here – even with the large time gap. Perhaps naively, I also thought that opposing the inclusion of the alleged sexuality of a Nun in a WP article might be motivated by a desire to avoid negative reflections / perceptions of the church. I was not advancing a conspiracy theory. I was noting the problematic behaviour of an editor with a personal belief that appeared to produce bias in the past and seeing similar behaviour, wondering in that same personal belief was in play. We all know that anyone is free to edit WP so long as they edit within policy. You and Diligens are free to contribute to the article or contribute to the talk page, to discuss and help to improve WP content in line with reliable sources, etc. This woman's personal story is tragic in parts, she was certainly treated very unfairly at times, and her WP bio should reflect her experiences... but that is not a topic for this page.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I believe my WP editing history shows my respect for policy. I do not accept as fair or reasonable the suggestion that I am responsible for the gender gap on WP – and for the record, I am totally in favour of decreasing the gender gap and increasing the diversity in the WP editor population. I do make mistakes, as do we all, and I am quite comfortable admitting to my mistakes when I become aware of them and taking appropriate corrective action. However, I don't see why my advice to Diligens was inappropriate or out of line. Finally, if you are suggesting, as Grandpallama has suggested you are, and as it appears to me is the case, that I lack decency then I ask you substantiate that claim or withdraw it. I find it an offensive and unjustified suggestion, not to mention a failure on your part to assume my good faith. EdChem (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear EdChem, your Perhaps naively, I also thought that opposing the inclusion of the alleged sexuality of a Nun in a WP article might be motivated by a desire to avoid negative reflections / perceptions of the church is an exact summary of what I was criticizing in your previous statement: not understanding the situation. In 1967 and after, Soeur Sourire was rather not the rank and file nun and the church was in open fight against her. Therefore, I don't understand how you can figure that User:Diligens asking "stop throwing stones at her" could be a case of "protecting the church". Concerning privacy, I stand to the rule that what occurs ---or doesn't occur--- behind private walls is exactly that:private. While asking "what was she doing with her crucifix behind their closed curtains", as done ad nauseam in the talk page, is exactly that: a lack of decency. In the rest of your message, you are acknowledging that this woman's personal story is tragic in parts, she was certainly treated very unfairly at times, and her WP bio should reflect her experiences..., and asserting that woman's gap matters. Me too. That's great indeed ! Pldx1 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It still looks to me like you are making a personal attack against EdChem, on top of which you are now putting in quotation marks statements that it does not appear to me people made. Seriously, where did EdChem say anything about a crucifix behind the curtains? Where did Diligens say anything about stone-throwing? Putting words into editors' mouths and then using those words to level accusations is not okay. It's also a pretty clear lack of decency, ironically. Grandpallama (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Time to close? I think this discussion has reached a point where it is a bit past its shelf life. Perhaps an uninvolved admin would consider closing it? See also point 3 here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm pretty amazed at the whole thing. Just too much over-action, in my opinion. Ad Orientem originally exited help with the article because he was afraid he was getting "involved". This was his self-evaluation, which is why I mentioned "bias" because that is what getting "involved" implies, conflict of interest, which is a bias. Next, I was in a revert war, though at the time I didn't think I was the one who was warring. I was reprimanded, and I instantly complied (and plan to do an RfC on the content). Lastly, the only thing I said to AO was that I think he handled PA in this instance by not asking for evidence from me. Simple as that. And I didn't make any issue out of it other than to simply let him know on his page. --Diligens (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Odd IP edits

• 80.116.234.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure whether or not this requires action; posting here to be on the safe side. Relocation to a more suitable venue would be welcome

A few hours ago User:80.116.234.171 made a number of edits to archived talk pages, doing no more than tweaking white space. For example, this.

Three questions:

• Should such edits be made?
• Should they be rolled back en-masse?
• It's possible that this masks a single or small number of significant changes to relatively unwatched talk page archives; does anyone have any tool for checking?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Filter 973 (hist · log), though it wasn't created in response to this user, may be useful here. I've given it a more meaningful name; perhaps it should start tagging edits as well. I have no idea what this IP is doing, either. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified the IP editor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith editing at Howrah

User:Bubun khanra and User:The king is back here are continuously making disruptive edits on the article Howrah. Myself (User:Master Of Ninja) and User:Jeet Dev have been frustrated by this. We have tried to reach out to the users, as can be seen on their talk pages, as well as inviting them to discuss the issues on Talk:Howrah#Recent changes 2019-03-26. However there has been no indication of discussion nor stopping of this behaviour. The problem with the edits have been discussed on Talk:Howrah#Recent changes 2019-03-26. User:Dirkbb has done a previous reversion as well. It is believed also that User:Bubun khanra and User:The king is back here are sock puppet accounts since they make the same edits. Diffs are as follows:

There have been edits from an IP address with the same changes before this. I have made efforts to reach out on the Howrah talk page as noted above. Multiple messages have been left on the relevant user talk pages. However the continuing repeated edits have made both myself and User:Jeet Dev feel that these are being done in bad faith. We are hoping to get some administrator input to try and stop these edits. Could we please get some assistance how to take this from here? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• As per reporting guidelines I have put messages on the relevant users pages. Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have indeffed The king is back here (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock/meatpuppet and blocked Bubun khanra (talk · contribs) for 3 days. Note too that at least some of the text being added was copied from other wikiprojects (compare description of Shibpur in this edit with the Wikivoyage page); such copyving is a copyvio unless done with proper attribution. Finally, the accounts have also been editing as 2405:204:41AA:DC51:84C9:57D5:6DA9:2750 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and may be related to Anirban9019 (talk · contribs) but I am not certain enough yet to act on the latter. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should block the user for a week.. For not getting the point despite having it spelt out letter-to-letter. The Duke 20:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon's hostility and generally disruptive behavior

I want to call attention to this noticeboard the extremely hostile edit summary from a supposedly-experienced editor, User:John the Idegon. It was an out of the line, bullying attempt to own the Evansville Central High School article, despite my vast and uncontroversial addition to the article (I added notable alumni, all referenced with reliable sources).

He then reverted my undo-ing of that, inciting further hostility. If his edit here isn't a blatant violation of WP:OWN, then Misplaced Pages has lost its way (i.e.: why does he get the make the unilateral decision that my sources aren't reliable? So you're telling me, the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame doesn't qualify as a RS? User:John the Idegon would likely be the only person to think that, yet somehow the onus is on me to show it otherwise???).

I took a look at his overall editing history of late, not just this high school article. Turns out, he doesn't play well in the sandbox (). There is a distinct vibe of "above the law" with him because... hold my drink... ah yes, he's in the top 1,000 of Wikipedians by edits made (golf clap).

His aggression is what allows Misplaced Pages to slowly die. New editors get torched by people like him. SportsGuy789 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Those edit summaries and edits are neither hostile nor aggressive. Also, I have notified him of this thread. Nihlus 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

{{ec}} Whenever there is a content dispute, talk-page discussion is a (some would say the) first place to go to hammer it out. There, you can make your case that the source(s) are reliable and others can weigh in to get WP:CONSENSUS. No matter how convinced you are that you are right (and regardless of how right you may actually be), nothing is lost by talking it out and repeating your same edit that is disputed is not the way forward. JfI's summaries are formal in tone and explicitly advise to you follow that WP:BRD policy. I see no hostility or aggression. In this time, you could have looked at the target articles and seen if there are additional or alternate sources cited for these biographical details and posted a list of diverse refs that all concur to help defend against a concern about the first source you found. DMacks (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summaries are not hostile. The OP would do well to read WP:ASPERSIONS and then take the good advice offered here about a talk page discussion. MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit summaries are mostly ok. John of Idegeon does have a habit of jumping to user warnings far too quickly though, and that does come across as overly aggressive. Maybe that could be toned down? New users are going to make mistakes, but dropping warnings on them for a reasonable error isn't the best option. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree none of the edit summaries posted are hostile, nor are they intended to show ownership. They all encourage use of the talk page in order to gain consensus. He's not making any "unilateral decision," but he disagrees with you, and now it's on you to get consensus for inclusion on the talk page. There were no warnings posted here as far as I can see, so I don't think that's an issue. I recommend a talk page discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has stepped in and added reliable sources. That's all I wanted to see. I'll not be responding further here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat from Ald81

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user Ald81 made a legal threat against me here. I advised Ald81 that per WP:LEGAL, that simply is not allowed and that he should remove the legal threat; see here. In response, Ald81, rather than remove the legal threat, or clarify that he was not actually making a legal threat, simply added ranting comments to his talk page. See User_talk:Ald81#I_am_not_a_vandal. Per the advice at WP:LEGAL ("Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator") I am reporting this here. I leave administrators to deal with the issue in a way they consider appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. Someone takes their philosophy very seriously. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• It may seem like ranting to you, but remember these are phenomenologists we're dealing with. EEng 10:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: The account requested unblocking (which I declined), however on a check through the talk page I found a claim of isp editing which when checked resolves to Milan, Italy. Combined with the poor English I wonder if if this account could be related to one of these. Is there enough evidence to check? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @TomStar81: Putting aside Italy, what behavioral evidence is their linking the new account with that case?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Bbb23: Relatively new account (suggestive of a sock), a notice for adding copyrighted or closely paraphrased information to Misplaced Pages, quasi questionably English, and lastly almost 20 hours of being up which can occasionally make veteran editors )like me) see things that look compelling up close but not really when you step away to take a shower and come back to it half an hour or so later. I think perhaps I was correlating a few things that may not have actually been there, in which case I'll go back to the bathroom and yell at myself again about checking twice and publishing once. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP now engaging in hate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 212.219.232.143 recently made this edit ], looking at their talk page it is a list of blocks for vandalism. I think a block is not in order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. The IP has only edited disruptively ever, but the range is registered to a Welsh county council so there's a fair chance we're either looking at a school or a public library. I don't know if there might be mileage in a note to the council involved? GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Moylesy98

Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a block for edit warring and has resumed hostilities. Short of an indefinite block, I think that the only way this can be dealt with is by means of an editing restriction:-

"Moylsey98 is permanently prohibited from adding an image to, removing an image from, or changing any image contained in, any article or list."

He may propose additions, removal or changes at talk pages. Any additions, removals or changes may be made by any editor of good standing if there is consensus for same. Any breach of this restriction to be enforced by a block of not less than three months duration. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Moylesy98 has been notified of this discussion Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• And 5 minutes later they're indef blocked? C'mon give the guy a chance to at least reply!

I would support this indef block (rather than a TBAN) because it's fundamentally behavioural and failing to see what the rules (do source, do follow consensus, don't edit-war) are, rather than narrow enough to filter. Maybe they can make some case for "OK, I get it, I'll stop" and we could at least try that. But surely they get time to respond, at the very least? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the point. They've been blocked four times this year alone for doing exactly the same thing over and over again, and they clearly haven't understood why they've been blocked. The latest block was for two weeks, and they came back straight away with reverts of the exact same material that got them blocked for edit warring (i.e. replacing good images with their own sub-par ones), with edit-summaries like "Reinstatement following removal by a spammer" and "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy". We can only have limited patience with this, I'm afraid. If they come back with an unblock request that addresses the problems, then yes we can try a limited unblock, but they need to understand why they keep being blocked first, and they clearly haven't. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, he's indeffed but has TP access. We can discuss the proposal and it can be made a condition of unblocking. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We should at-least unblock them to make their case here. Blocking a few minutes after talking here is extremely unfair. I would support a block, but give them enough rope, so that they can respond. The Duke 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• They've just posted an unblock request which is going to be rejected on sight: it's a reasonable case for what they believe to justofy their editing, but it's entirely not an unblock request, as it doesn't address the reason for blocking. As such, yet another blocked editor is just going to have their unblock request refused summarily, leading to yet another angry ex-editor.

Their "request" still fails to address the underlying problem, and is a complete misunderstanding of how image selection for articles is, or should be, done. As such, it shows no long-term hope for a real solution and unblock here. But we have to at least explain this to them! As it is, we're steaming straight into the typical, and terrible, standard WP response and we need to do better. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh, I have difficulty seeing any of this as a real failing on our part. Lots of people have tried to talk to Moylsey98 long before it came to this. I see plenty of non templated comments on their talk page, including from you. Moylsey98 has barely responded (even from looking at their contrib history). They've shown zero real willingless to learn and seriously engage with people to try and understand where they're going wrong. It's not like they've come back and done things slightly differently each time. They've generally just done the exact same thing. By their own admission, the only real reason they've been adding the images is for spam like reasons, they want to promote their own work. As with a number of spammers, their COI means they likely genuinely believe their work is better than anything else, but really there's no reason for the community to waste a lot of time educating them when they're so unwilling to learn. If individual community members want to try and teach them that's fine. But there's zero reason to waste time at ANI on what's a clear cut case. If people are able to teach them on their talk page, they're free to request an unblock and I'm sure some admin will get to it. But it's not something the community should be expected to spend a great deal of time on. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is not the first time Moylesy98 has been at ANI. Even given that this discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#User:Moylesy98 was perhaps not worth responding to, I recall this discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98 on an issue fairly related to what's going on here was at ANI for quite a long time which is also supported by the time stamps. And their block log shows they were unblocked for all of it . And Special:Contributions/Moylesy98 shows a small number of edits during a fair amount of that time. So frankly, we've already given this editor way more latitude and waited more than long enough for them to seriously engage with us than we needed to. They've completely failed to do it any meaningful way, and instead have just continued to spam (by their own admission) in numerous ways. If anyone ever gets through to them then good. But really it's no major failing on our part that we didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm actually a strong believer that we're way too reluctant to unblock someone to allow them to participate in an AN//I discussion about them. IMO the copying over from talk business is more complicated for everyone than it needs to be. Unless there's good reason to think the editor isn't going to obey the condition, I think we should as a matter or routine on request, unblock someone to allow them to participate in the discussion about them with the understanding it's the only thing they're allowed to do. Any violation of this condition will of course lead to an instant reblock, and is likely to destroy their chances. (And we should perhaps also remind editors that WP:Bludgeoning discussion is likely to harm them.) But in my mind, this isn't really an issue here because 1) No one really seems to think the topic ban proposal as a replacement for the indef is worth it 2) They haven't asked. (This comes up most often with cban appeals.) That said, if a serious proposal did develop and Moylesy98 were to request, I'd support it here as well. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite - would you be amenable to Nil Einne's suggestion of unblocking in order to participate here? Nil Einne - the reason nobody is addressing my proposal is that they are all arguing over the merits of the block. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support an indef block. But only once we've at least tried to explain it and given them a chance to respond. Even if that doesn't work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In haste, I may have more time later, but I wanted to comment before this was closed. I am not an admin. I have seen editing from User:Moylesey98 which has lead me to believe that there might be difficulties in both understanding and writing in English. I alluded to it in . They may have difficulty in making an unblock request. A young editor (that is young in development of skills; I am unsure of their age) might become better. A young editor might be understandably proud of a new camera and want to see their images used. I have seen images added by him which I found as good as most, and deserving of a place in articles. I have not time to find them now.SovalValtos (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to rush. The closure made earlier was my fault, and because I didn't realize that the proposal was still ongoing... :-) ~Oshwah~ 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now found how to see some of User:Moylesey98's image uploads to commons. I think there are images of value. They do not have to be of immediate use and even poor quality images may turn out to be of value in the future when some unsuspected aspect of the image is identified as being of use. I think some of his images may have been denigrated, which could have exacerbated the situation. A few examples in the gallery should give an indication of how this editor's contributions might be of value. If totally blocked their interest in contributing to commons as well might be lost. The lack of competence in other aspects might well persuade admins to block for a while. I would not object if that were the case as much effort has been spent on dealing with this editor's incompetence already.

• Defiant and Earl of Mount Edgcumbe at Tyseley
• Hunslet 0-6-0 no 3696 "Respite"
• Andania's builders plate
• Avonside 0-6-0 no 1883

To clarify for you, the problem isn't that Dave occasionally takes good enough photos that are, or might be, useful. The problem is that he doesn't seem to know what he's doing, so he takes many more poor quality photos than the accidental good ones. But then he persists in insisting that "his" photos, are included in articles, regardless of whether they are better than others. If they happen to be better than others, we should include them at least until better ones are available. But more often than not they're not, and we therefore shouldn't. If you want a few examples, take a look at these:

• Composition wtf?
• shutter speed too slow! You need 1/500 at least.
• horrible shadow across the subject which is in the middle of the frame
• overexposed mess
• Composition - subject in the middle of the frame
• Distracting snowstorm
• Overexposed sky, odd composition
• A mess of nonsense in front of your subject.
• It's mostly a tree!
• subject in the middle
• too dark
• This is a photo of... nothing in particular.
• Yes, take photos of the crowds, though this is not really of them nor of the engine, which is placed too centrally. Also, sky overexposure.
• subject in the middle, overexposure...
• Overexposed sky, and top of firebox.
• Taken from the side in shadow;
• meh
• Subject in the middle of the frame, exposure problems from bright sky, subject in shadow.
• The sky is overexposed in this one but it is illustrative and should be used in the article.
• This is OK

He's got a Flickr account where there's pages and pages of this stuff. Tony May (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Fake references

Thanks to Doug Weller for spotting the pattern here. I think the following search results speak for themselves:

• "Effect of etafenone on total and regional myocardial blood flow"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase isoenzymes in human and rat brain"
• "Digitoxin metabolism by rat liver microsomes"
• "Antidepressant drugs affect dopamine uptake"
• "Action of propranolol on mitochondrial functions--effects on energized ion fluxes in the presence of valinomycin"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase by acidic metabolites of the biogenic amines"
• "Metal substitutions incarbonic anhydrase: a halide ion probe study"
• "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning"
• "Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin"
• "Studies of oxygen binding energy to hemoglobin molecule"
• "Maturation of the adrenal medulla--IV. Effects of morphine"
• "Comparison between procaine and isocarboxazid metabolism in vitro by a liver microsomal amidase-esterase"
• "Radiochemical assay of glutathione S-epoxide transferase and its enhancement by phenobarbital in rat liver in vivo"
• "Effect of chloroquine on cultured fibroblasts: release of lysosomal hydrolases and inhibition of their uptake"

"Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin" is being used to support statements in Alluvial fan, Urban open space, The Arena (Ahmedabad), and Draft:Saudi German Hospital Group, among others. "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning" is being used in Chilik River, Holcomb Fire, Baja California slider, Lolita Lebrón, and >40 other pages. And so on. As far as I can tell from Wikiblame, each time the refs ahave been added by a different ' user. One theory is that there's some "How to create a Wiki page" tutorial that's using these as example refs. But when I Google for the same titles, I find no such tutorial. So what, exactly, is going on here? I'm willing to list some of the users doing this, but before I start leaving scary ANI notices, does anyone have an explanation for why so many users might be doing this? I don't think it's a sockfarm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The cited articles have PubMed IDs in order, starting with PMID #1 (Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning). I bet there's some citation tool where if you click it, it adds the next PMID that's not already in the article as an example, under the assumption that the article author will fill it in with the desired metadata, and that these are just ones that never got filled in. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Random paranoid suggestion - someone doing research on reliability of Misplaced Pages by adding BS refs and seeing how quickly we remove them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, Goldenshimmer's answer makes much more sense. Occam's razor :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Inserting a reference that's just a number in Visual Editor produces a PMID reference. Peter James (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused about how this PMID thing happened, but I'm going to start removing these from articles where they clearly don't belong. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Every one I've checked seems to have been added by VisualEditor. So I'm thinking it's either:

1. People are just typing random numbers into the from and adding in whatever reference comes up.
2. People are adding valid references, and some bug in VisualEditor is silently replacing the refs with crazy low-PMID ones.
3. Some other tool is interacting with VisualEditor, causing the behavior Goldenshimmer describes.
4. People are trying to reuse existing references. That is, the user wants to reuse reference , so they type "4" into VE's form. Something strange comes up about polypeptide backbones, myohemerythrin and hemerythrin, but think think "hey, that's probably just some strange wiki term, I'll learn what it means later" and just click "Insert".

I don't think it's mostly (1), or there would be more hits for PMID 69, PMID 123, PMID 420, etc. (2) wouldn't be shocking, but so far no one's been able to reproduce the bug. I don't know about (3) ... maybe something to do with Wiki Ed? My bet is on (4), unless someone can think of a better explanation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've created filter 979 (hist · log) to track this. If it's a bug, I expect to see experienced editors doing this as well (that wouldn't show up in the search results, because they probably would have fixed the problem right away). If not, it's probably user error, and the filter can be set to give a friendly warning. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, Your number 4 is the explanation I was thinking of, but I removed a PMID 11 (I think?) from an article that had fewer than 11 references, so I ran out of possible explanations. Natureium (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Possibility (5): The user doesn't realize that reference numbers are assigned automatically, so they think the first step is to choose the number. So, if they are adding a reference near the end of the page, they try to "make room" for the refs that they plan on adding later. In any case, this problem was reported at phab:T198456 last year. Seems it's a problem on other wikis as well. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by TannerGoethals3 – rangeblock?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TannerGoethals3 was blocked fo continually putting unreferenced stuff into music articles, including violations of WP:NOR. Tanner was interested in some schools in Utah.

The Utah IP Special:Contributions/2601:680:C500:9C92:C8BE:1EB9:690F:8D0 was blocked for the same stuff, adding unreferenced material to music articles. Other IPs in the range have been blocked.

Further disruption continues from the /64 range. Can we put a block on Special:Contributions/2601:680:C500:9C92:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, everybody is blocked and tagged. Nothing more to do here. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati and Kamarupi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been an ongoing issue at Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit, as well as a number of related articles, wherein Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language). Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned), particularly given the absolute lack of corroboration and, in fact, direct contradiction of this claim in literature; insomuch as Bhaskarbhagawati has provided attribution, they've been cherry-picked statements twisted from context.

This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening. More recently, this has gotten disruptive enough to trigger a page protection . He has also recently taken to stonewalling in the article talk (for example ). He has brought up the dispute at RSN, even though the dispute with his desired article changes has not been the sources he uses, but rather what he claims they say. This might even constitute a form of WP:SHOPPING.

And, in the interest of providing some corroboration of this account, here is a list of relevant notices wherein administrators dropped the ball in sanctioning or correcting Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior

ANI, February 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau were both warned for edit warring and the issue of Bhaskarbhagawati's stonewalling was brought up.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was shown to be editing disruptively and failing to contribute to productive talk page discussion.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was again shown to be editing disruptively and not contributing productive to talk page discussion.

ANI, August 2012, ANI, April 2013, and ANI, June 2013 wherein Chaipau repeatedly attempted to report Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption and edit warring, but was was told to discuss the matter some more or take the issue to DRN.

Bhaskarbhagawati does not listen to consensus. He does not cease editing when he knows his edits are contentious. His behavior has long been disruptive, and it's surely been frustrating for user:Chaipau, who has spent the most time dealing with Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption. IMHO, an indefinite topic ban (which, given what he tends to edit around, would amount to a de facto ban) would be the best course of action. — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I won't be able to take a look at the editor conduct issues in any detail at the moment, but given the resumed edit-warring I have full-protected Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect, and informed Bhaskarbhagawati about the discretionary sanctions applicable to India-related articles. Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, i like to thank Ƶ§œš¹ for bringing the issue here, although i myself considered bringing it here, if wp:edit warring persisted. Abecedare i like to inform here that this dispute started back in 2012, with an preconceived notion of some editors including user Chaipau and user Aesoes, that a modern language/dialect cannot have a history, thus original article was divided into Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect citing lack of sources ?? As Aeusoes thankfully brought lot of things here, i will discuss them one by one.

• There has been an ongoing issue at Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit, as well as a number of related articles, wherein Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language).Here Aeusoes here actually supporting notions of user Chaipau that modern language/dialect cannot have a history, he confirmed his permanent stand by saying, he is not going to consider any further sources (although he seems layman to the subject and never contributed on it).

• Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned) Most people involved in past and present in current dispute hardly contributed to the article, other editor who he referred to was actually seems to be native speaker of Kamrupi, who seems to frustrated with their handling of the dispute. Instead of recommending mentor-ship by community, Aeusoes wrote a well designed case to topic ban him, fully supported by user Chaipau, which further aggrieved the issue.

• particularly given the absolute lack of corroboration and, in fact, direct contradiction of this claim in literature; insomuch as Bhaskarbhagawati has provided attribution, they've been cherry-picked statements twisted from context. The said attribution was done not unilaterally as portrayed here, rather was based on recommendation of wp:rsn (diff, diff), to do their part in addressing long pending dispute, which Aeusoes failed to point although he was part of discussion. For cherry picking, said citations were take to wp:rsn, and they think it in different way, even even user Chaipau has different opinion on this.

• This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening. More recently, this has gotten disruptive enough to trigger a page protection . I agree with Aesoes on this point, this article is in bad shape since 2012, when Chaipau and other uninvolved editors including Aeusoes divided the original article due to lack of sources, as informed above. As for listening, it seems Aeusoes said that he not going to consider sources further, as pointed above. As for page protection, again it is misrepresented, it was i who requested page protection to halt the edit war.

• He has also recently taken to stonewalling in the article talk (for example ). He has brought up the dispute at RSN, even though the dispute with his desired article changes has not been the sources he uses, but rather what he claims they say. This might even constitute a form of WP:SHOPPING.For so called stonewalling, was a discussion where it was asked if consensus, if any, can change with newer sources, which Aeusoes answered in negative, as discussed above. As talk page discussion failed, i have taken this matter for binding consensus to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Removal of reliable sources, where all the sources listed, especially most important one, along with entire reference section of both the article.

• And, in the interest of providing some corroboration of this account, here is a list of relevant notices wherein administrators dropped the ball in sanctioning or correcting Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior

ANI, February 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau were both warned for edit warring and the issue of Bhaskarbhagawati's stonewalling was brought up.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was shown to be editing disruptively and failing to contribute to productive talk page discussion.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was again shown to be editing disruptively and not contributing productive to talk page discussion.

ANI, August 2012, ANI, April 2013, and ANI, June 2013 wherein Chaipau repeatedly attempted to report Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption and edit warring, but was was told to discuss the matter some more or take the issue to DRN. The selective old threads brought here by Aeusoes are linked, some of them are opened by myself, casual editor can judge it, i don't want to comment on the same.

• Bhaskarbhagawati does not listen to consensus. He does not cease editing when he knows his edits are contentious. His behavior has long been disruptive, and it's surely been frustrating for user:Chaipau, who has spent the most time dealing with Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption. IMHO, an indefinite topic ban (which, given what he tends to edit around, would amount to a de facto ban) would be the best course of action. Here, what Aeusoes saying is identical as he did for other involved editor back in 2012, with selective and well designed case, overlooking that i am the original and most involved editor in Kamrup and Kamrupi topic, which otherwise attracts negligible edits.

Thus, to conclude it is clear case of wp:bad faith editing,wp:censorship, blocking of wp:dispute resolution processes etc. Although Misplaced Pages is an collaborative process, involvement of user Aeusoes on the subject seems to hampering in efforts of attaining binding consensus, which can confirmed by history section of both the articles, where existing reliable sources and large old content are persistently deleted. As reliable sources and wp:noticeboards are disregarded by them, i don't know where to go next. Finally, i like to see wider involvement of editors in neglected subjects like current one, but for now its seems difficult. Abecedare, consider helping on this.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to read Bhaskarbhagawati's links and come to their own judgment. I do think a link to the "well designed case" against the other editor is worthy of sharing, which can be found here. — Ƶ§œš¹ 22:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• ANI is not really the best place to settle a content-dispute or even analyze the related 7-year history of contributor conduct; that's why, for now, I am not addressing the individual points raised above even though I have read the posts and sampled the linked discussions. In interest of moving forward:
  • @Bhaskarbhagawati: do you agree to take the content dispute to WP:DRN and until that is done not to edit Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit and related articles/talkpages?
  • @Aeusoes1 and Chaipau: Would you two be willing to participate in the dispute resolution if Bhaskar does initiate the process at WP:DRN?

I am making the proposal since talkpage discussions are clearly at an impasse and in the hope that such voluntary steps will preempt the need for community-imposed restrictions. Abecedare (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how years-long problematic contributor conduct doesn't fall under "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I don't have a lot of faith that DRN will yield much in the way of resolution. In the past, Bhaskarbhagawati has shied away from contributing when the DRN process starts. But I'm willing to participate. If it comes to it, we can come back here after a lack of resolution and bring the issue up again.

Is there a reason you've worded your question with the assumption that Bhaskarbhagawati would start the DRN process? — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I posed the question to Bhaskar because (1) they wish to change the status quo at the articles and therefore it would be natural for them to make the case for the changes at WP:DRN, and (2) as the links you provided earlier showed, Bhaskar is the one who has equivocated in the past about discussing the issue to DRN. So it would be good to get a straight-up answer from them. Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare i accept your suggestion and willing to maintain status quo, will take it to wp:drn for binding decision. They are most welcome there to settle the bitter long pending dispute.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: Thanks for the response. That's helpful. I wanted to double-check though that besides taking the issue to WP:DRN you agree "not to edit Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit and related articles/talkpages until the DRN process is completed" ? Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, indeed i have no intention to contribute further on said articles untill i get some binding consensus although articles are in half deleted state, i expect the same from user Chaipau and others, furthermore you will be informed about such consensus to peacefully enforce it, thank you i really appreciate your help.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The issue here is not about content dispute, as user:Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to present here, but about a behavior pattern that he has persistently and consistently demonstrated since 2012. As the remarks by others have shown, he makes no effort to come to a consensus and have persistently rejected 3O (I shall give examples later today). Once consensus goes against his point of view, he starts WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM to try to include his point of view, by using different templates and other techniques (e.g. using "Kamrupi language links here" on Kamrupi dialect etc.). He floods article ledes with cherry-picked quotes that he mines with search engines. His effort at the WP:RSN is in line with gaming the system—to get his quotes anointed as "reliable sources". Even when it was pointed out to him that it was not an RS issue, he still wanted to use it. The He tries WP:POVFORK to include his POV (e.g. Ancient Kamrup for Kamarupa). This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The stunted growth of Kamrupi dialect since 2012 is itself an example. I shall document this pattern of behavior in more detail below sometime later. Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau thanks and welcome to discussion. I am addressing your points below.

• The issue here is not about content dispute, as user:Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to present here, but about a behavior pattern that he has persistently and consistently demonstrated since 2012. Indeed it is in their interest to portray the same as behavior issue, although entire dispute started with division of original article in 2012.

• As the remarks by others have shown, he makes no effort to come to a consensus and have persistently rejected 3O (I shall give examples later today).The original article is in same state since 2012, with original content long gone. Also you are constantly pointed that WP:3O does not determine binding resolutions, it simply offers a non-binding third opinion on debates that exist exclusively between two editors, and would be superseded by a consensus decision at wp:rsn, wp:drn or elsewhere.

• Once consensus goes against his point of view, he starts WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM to try to include his point of view, by using different templates and other techniques (e.g. using "Kamrupi language links here" on Kamrupi dialect etc.).The example given for so called gamingthesystem, the template {{Redirect|Kamrupi language||Kamrupi (disambiguation){{!}}Kamrupi}} cannot be a controversial one, effort here by Chaipau is to cement his point that said speech is mere dialect which entirely lacks history.

• He floods article ledes with cherry-picked quotes that he mines with search engines. His effort at the WP:RSN is in line with gaming the system—to get his quotes anointed as "reliable sources". Even when it was pointed out to him that it was not an RS issue, he still wanted to use it. I have discussed above how attribution of each views are done as per wp:rsn, the cherry pickings Chaipau referring, his recent view seems altogether different ? For mining quotes from search engine comment, he may not sitting besides me when i am editing.I have taken it to wp:rsn to follow wp:dispute resolution process, rather wp:edit warring which Chaipau seems quite used to. Chaipau intentionally misrepresented the wp:rsn, where they do said issue maybe not of rs although they are reliable to use, if anybody disagree should be attributed (diff, diff).

• He tries WP:POVFORK to include his POV (e.g. Ancient Kamrup for Kamarupa). This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The example provided is too misleading, although content should not discussed here, to clear Ancient Kamrup was for ancient history of Kamrup dating several centuries B.C. (references are in article) (see Medieval Kamrup too), while Kamarupa more appropriately Kamarupa kingdom is 4-12th century political entity.

• This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The stunted growth of Kamrupi dialect since 2012 is itself an example. In contrary, for a casual viewer Kamrupi dialect grown multiple times as compared to original article in 2012.

• I shall document this pattern of behavior in more detail below sometime later.Indeed, diverting the content dispute to behavior issue suits them. It seems a case of wp:competence on the subject alongside wp:bad faith editing.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Chaipau: I don't disagree with you regarding the past behavior. Our difference perhaps lies in how to deal with it. Since Bhaskar now is willing to take the issue to DRN (and not edit the articles/talkpages in the meantime), I think that is worth a try. Would you be willing to participate in that process if Bhaskar does initiate it? Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Abecedare: We could try, but I don't believe this will resolve this issue. Chaipau (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Chaipau: Thanks. Your scepticism is only natural given the experience since 2012. The reason I hold out some hope for DRN is that the volunteer at the board will, hopefully, help keep the discussion focused and not let it devolve into the frustratingly lengthy back-and-forths as has happened in the past. And in case that doesn't work, it will be easier to make the case for community sanctions or discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA.

Unless the participants or another admin have additional input, I'll close this section and log the agreement in a few hours. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonations of admins?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Ster401 (talk · contribs) impersonating Joe Roe (talk · contribs)? This new user (with a fake checkuser category / topicon on their user page) "closed" several WP:SPI investigations with a signature imitating Joe Roe's and then proceeded to comment on various AfDs. They also created the talk page for JJMC88 (talk · contribs) (now indefinitely blocked) who seems to have been impersonating JJMC89 (talk · contribs). — MarkH21 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and rolled back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well it's definitely not me. Presumably a sock of User:Estup329, who did the same thing last week. @NinjaRobotPirate: who blocked that account. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This troll has been very busy for the past couple weeks, mostly vandalizing SPI cases. It's probably a bored kid who's looking for attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Kenmont Primary School

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I templated Kenmont Primary School this morning with a {{merge school}} suggesting it should be merged to Kensal Green, its locale. I opened an initial open discussion at Talk:Kensal Green#Kenmont Primary School, asking for comments. Edwardx (talk · contribs) reverted my template quoting WP:GEOFEAT as his rationale for why the school is notable, I presume because the school building is Grade II Listed. I have suggested to him that this is not a given because the section says "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", restored the template and added a comment on his own talk page suggesting we discuss it where the template suggests - at the talk of the proposed merge destination. This is the destination linked from the template and makes a lot of sense as the locale article is likely to busier than a very small primary school article so will invite a greater variety of opinions. Edward has now reverted my restoration of the template again suggesting that the school building is an Artificial Geographical Feature as per the first bullet of WP:GEOFEAT. I have asked him to revert his reversion as I dont want to get into 3RR argument. Can someone please restore the template, as it is the only pointer on the article to the appropriate discussion page. And if anyone wants to share their opinion I'd be happy to engage with it. Fob.schools (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Notified https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AEdwardx&type=revision&diff=890618056&oldid=890615465 Fob.schools (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please close as user has now restored the tag. Fob.schools (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Saoirse fírrin and POV / TROUBLES

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saoirse fírrin (talk · contribs)

A handful of edits and they're all seriously failing WP:NPOV, in the territory of WP:TROUBLES. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've left a DS notification; if they continue, AE is probably the right venue. GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Lucaspipet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lucaspipet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism only account. He/She only added grossly insulting nicknames to Argentine football club's pages.---Darius (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This requires referral to the WP:BOOMERANG department. Four of Lucaspipet's edits are good faith reversions of apparent vandalism by the filer. An obvious example is DagosNavy's repeated change of 'River Plate' to 'Riber Plate' repeatedly reverted to the correct 'River Plate' by Lucaspipet. The remaining two are good faith additions to Boca Juniors, the first of which was incorrectly performed, but correctly done at the second attempt (mistakes can be expected from a four edit old new account). 81.129.194.138 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he corrected "Riber", but in the same edits he added the grossly insulting "los mas chorros y putos" (I will not translate) as a club nickname. Same for the Boca Juniors infobox changes.---Darius (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No he didn't he removed it. You re-added it . ---Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I am only restored "Riber" by accident (as yourself have acknowledged).---Darius (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@DagosNavy: Are you really that incapable of reading a diff, even when someone has given you the hint that you're reading it wrong? A vandal added it, not Lucaspipet. Lucaspipet removed it. You re-added it (see diff I actually provided above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs)

He reverted one vandal only to intentionally vandalize the page himself. And please, keep an eye on WP:CIVIL (and sign up your comments)...Darius (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Being simultaneously smug and incompetent is not a good look for you. I hope this is not your normal state. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't you stop insulting fellow Wikipedians? Or should I report you for incivility?--Darius (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @DagosNavy:, you are in the wrong here, and owe Lucaspipet an apology. Please look at your edits again. You are accidentally restoring vandalism, while Lucaspipet is removing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you consider this one (still unreverted) a constructive edit by Lucaspipet?---Darius (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it a while ago, and it may or may not be correct; he needs to add a source. But by that same logic, should I block you for your "vandalism" as well? Why are we supposed to assume bad faith for them, and good faith for you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Lucaspipet is right: . That isn't a reliable source, but it shows that he's not just vandalizing. Now are you going to apologize? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Cebollitas subcampeón" is a taunting nickname in Argentine football, generally used to degrade runner-ups. Not to mention the racial slur "Bolitas" for Bolivians. It's quite difficult to assume good faith in this case if you speak Spanish...Darius (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

S/D: BTW, yahoo answers in Spanish is far from being a reliable source...Darius (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No shit. I literally just said that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Then don't use it here in WP, please.---Darius (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, by that logic I should assume you are a vandal too; you called them putos, not Lucaspipet. I'm leaving, you appear to be a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know, quotation marks are used to mark the "repetition of one expression as part of another one". So the expression "putos" is clearly not mine.---Darius (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I blocked the vandal who actually vandalized the page (User talk:Dddcooooo), I've removed the incorrect warning at User talk:Lucaspipet and thanked them for removing the vandalism, I've reverted Lucaspipet's addition of other nicknames pending a reliable source (if any, I don't know) to back them up, and I've given up on trying to educate DagosNavy on diff reading, assuming good faith, and not being a dick. So an uninvolved admin could probably close this; if desired, with a reminder to me to remain polite and not lose patience with idiots so quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Bravo! Plaudite, amici! Remedium frustra est contra stultum quarere!. Talk (specially in the internet) is obviously cheap...y tuve mucho mejores maestros que vos, asi que lavate la boca (y otras partes) antes de hablar de educación, volve a tu montaña y sentate en el pico.--Darius (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated reversions by "AhmadLX"

For the past few weeks, a Misplaced Pages user going by the name "AhmadLX" has been going through my edits and undoing several of my valid edits for no proper reason. Following are some examples of this:

• On March 16, 2019, I made an edit on the page Fadak. The article basically describes an issue between two people, Fatimah and Abu Bakr. However, the issue was (partially) described using a quote from a book that read: "There was no denying the populist appeal of the message Abu Bakr sent by denying Fatima's claim". This was quite obvious POV, so I removed that quote. However, that edit was reverted by AhmadLX the same day, claiming that it was not POV.
• On March 26, 2019, I made a series of edits on the page Ali. The edits fixed a grammatical mistake (missing the word "the"), standardized the spelling of the word "Kaaba" (at least two different spelling variations had been used), and grammatically changed part of a paragraph, among other issues. In addition, my edits cleared up a rather confusing, hard-to-read paragraph. My cleaning included the addition some content that was supported by multiple sources; while some content in the messy paragraph was deleted, any deletion was un-sourced or unneeded. However, AhmadLX summarily reverted all of my edits to the page that day -- the grammar fixes as well as the cleanup.
• Some time ago, there was an IP edit that removed some information from the page Uthman. Previously, a sentence on that page read, "Uthman was also present at the event of Ghadir Khumm, where, according to both Shia and Sunni sources, he was among those who pledged allegiance to Ali." That sentence included both Shia and Sunni sources at the end. That IP, edit, however, removed the fact that Sunni sources attested to that (despite the Sunni references) -- it was changed to "Uthman was also present at the event of Ghadir Khumm, where, according to Shia sources, he was among those who pledged allegiance to Ali." I undid the IP edit, as there were multiple Sunni references at the end of that sentence and to remove such a statement is misleading, but AhmadLX once again reverted my edit.
• Perhaps the most telling occurrence happened today, on the page Succession to Muhammad. There was a quote from a book by Wilferd Madelung on the page, but the word "supposedly" had been inserted to the quote (despite it not being there, in that place, in Madelung's book). I removed the word "supposedly," but AhmadLX undid that edit, re-adding the word "supposedly" into the quote despite it not being there in the original text. This clearly violates WP:QUOTE, which states that a quote should be "unedited, exact reproduction of the original source".

If only one -- or maybe even two -- of these edit reversals had been done by AhmadLX, then it could be assumed to be good faith reversals. However, it appears that AhmadLX is specifically targeting me/my edits. His constant reverts violate WP:QUO, which states that "reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." The edits that I described do not fit that description, and thus the repeated targeting of my edits by AhmadLX is unjustified. Like all of you, I am trying to help to improve Misplaced Pages, but as you can probably imagine, this can be difficult when edits are reverted for no good reason. I would really appreciate your help in sorting out this matter. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

AhmadLX has been notified of this discussion. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fadak edit is this. It was a properly attributed quote from a book on the topic, presented as quote. To Snowksy Mountain it appeared POV because it presented views which he perhaps doesn’t agree with. So he removed that quote attributed to author as POV.

Edit that I reverted on Ali is this. Here Snowsky Mountain replaced RS like Wilfered Madelung & Encyclopedia Iranica with questionable sources like “A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims”. It should be noted that he was warned not to use this source, and other sources like this, in his previous ANI report.

My revert on Uthman is this. Again, based on either questionable sources, including Al-Islam.org, and other unverifiable refs. Furhter discussion about this can be seen on his talk page.

My revert on Sucession to Muhammad is this. In this case, Snowsky Mountain is right. I failed to see that it was a quote.

This user has long record of POV pushing on Islam related articles. His editing has been contested by several editors in past, and continues to be (see his activities on article talk pages for example). Details can be seen from his talk page history. As mentioned above, he was reported, by somebody else, for his tendentious editing, and later, after another report -made by me- was blocked for the same reason. Since his return, he has continued editing in similar manner. Apart from above, a few more examples of his insistence on promoting certain viewpoints can be seen here, here, here or here. Again see sources used: Website like “Islamic Moral Stories”, and “Al-Burhan Fi Tafsir al-Quran”. If further info/elaboration is required, feel free to ping me. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Wright (author)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help's needed here. I'm attempting to restore a stable version to the lede, and can no longer do so without warring. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I rolled back the problematic edits. Hopefully this causes the editor to stop. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jip Orlando. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

93.38.65.148

93.38.65.148 (talk · contribs) writes in abominable English, curses in Italian in his edit summaries, and has a long history of bad edits including edit warring. He is being disruptive on Minhag, without engaging in any discussion, either on the article talkpage or his user talkpage. I think a 24-48-72 hour block might be the best course of action. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours for edit warring on Minhag. ~Oshwah~ 06:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Meat socks at Identity Evropa refused to answer COI

Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Student4N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SheepDirectory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SamSamuel11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ribose carb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bakken56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A continuation of this ANI thread. So after I asked these accounts to clarify their COI on March 30, All of them disappeared, until yesterday when one of them blanked my message and left this angry message at my talk page. A brief look ar their contribs looks like clicking random article or rabbit hole and make small edits eager to get past 50 edits. One of them sneakily inserted "alleged" on a section related to the group before finally reaching 50 edits and jumping onto the main article. This neo-Nazi group has an active, ongoing effort to whitewash their Misplaced Pages page. A couple of them got indeffed in their campaign last summer. Need admins willing to action.  It looks like a duck to me. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 00:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has asked the following of multiple editors:

Hi, . You are expected to answer the following questions in a clear, honest, and yes/no manner:

• Are you a member of the organization(s) known as Identity Evropa (IE) or American Identity Movement (AIM)?
• Are you personally or financially related to IE/AIM or other white nationalist/"Identitarian" groups, or Nathan Damigo, Patrick Casey, and Elliot Kline, in any way?

If so, you must declare your conflict of interest. Undisclosed editing, especially undisclosed paid editing, are serious violations of our policies. You must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until you have done so.

The detailed notice is below. Thank you. (Emphasis in original)

...followed by the standard Template:uw-coi notice.

To make things worse, he then took these editors to ANI complaning when they blanked the message or posted an angry response. I certainly would have blanked such a message if I had received it.

I have no problem with uw-coi notice, but Tsumikiria's added text seem overly aggressive and accusatory for a first contact with a suspected coi editor. It is also factually untrue. No policy says that coi editors "must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until they have done so." It is perfectly acceptable for a coi editor to not declare anything and to instead delete the warning and silently stop editing in the area where he has a coi.

None of the above implies that these users do or do not have a coi. That only becomes an issue if they continue to edit the pages where they are suspected to have a coi after receiving a warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm allowed to post here but this user tried to do the same with me. They seem to prowl articles about radical leftism and when anyone tries to edit or portray them in a bad way, the user goes onto their page and accuses them of rules violations usually without evidence, in a way that implies that the user is a moderator. I was personally accused of being a sock because I (actually what they said) "knew how to use wikipedia". Kilometerman (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kilometerman have a content dispute with me and Doug Weller on Antifa (United States) where they added insufficiently supported and undue material, which has been rigorously discussed and settled in the past months, onto the lead. I dragged them into discussion per standard WP:BRD process and asked them to stop potential personal attacks, but they blanked my message. The full exchange can be found here. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I originally meant to use Template:uw-paid1, but feared that this COI situation may not necessarily involve paid, so I thought I could use uw-coi instead. The "must not edit until respond" clause might fit uw-paid better, I could be under the wrong impression that the same thing apply to regular COI inquiries as well. Sorry if I seemed too aggressive and I'll better my approach in the future. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 03:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, it is a bad idea to make threats or ultimatums of other editors unless you intend to follow through on them. Liz 05:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Related: Template talk:Uw-paid1#"do not edit further until you answer this message". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly do not want undisclosed meatpuppets of the neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa or its rebranded successor "American Identity Movement" editing anything whatsoever related to those groups or American or contemporary or 20th or 21st century politics in general . I suppose that it is hypothetically possible that such an editor might contribute positively about butterflies or stamp collecting. But any inquiries to such editors must accurately reflect our policies and guidelines, and it looks to me like you got over your skis here, Tsumikiria. Tainted evidence is often worse than no evidence whatsoever. Please be careful. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs

May we have a few diffs showing each of the listed users exhibiting behavior that would support them being meat puppets, please? Nobody wants undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group editing Misplaced Pages, but nobody wants someone who isn't a undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group being accused of being one either. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I shouldn't expect people to read page history or previous discussion. Here's a few:

• 2019-03-26T13:56:41 SamSamuel11 removed the well-sourced info that AIM is a rebrand of IE, as well as IE facing decline in membership, falsely claiming no citation.
• 2019-03-26T16:15:17 SheepDirectory appeared out of the blue to revert on behalf of SamSamuel11.

• SheepDirectory previously inserted "alleged" onto the sentence and the group was renamed American Identity Movement (AIM), as part of a public relations effort to avoid scrutiny on Unicorn Riot. These two edits appears completely unrelated in topic field with their other edits. For a brand new editor they display proficiency such as Twinkle usage. Most of their edits has been small copyedits with no large content addition.

• 2019-03-26T18:50:49 SamSamuel11 revert again, declaring no consensus purely based on number of reverters on their behalf.
• 2019-03-26T18:55:48 SamSamuel11 hitting 3RR with no explanation whatsoever.
• 2019-03-19T14:30:03 SamSamuel11 blanking the redirect American Identity Movement, claiming AIM to be a different organization
• 2019-03-19T21:47:13 Bakken56 appeared out of the blue on this redirect, 3rd edit, adding the promotional sentence "The American Identity Movement was founded by Patrick Casey on March 8th, 2019."
• 2019-03-26T13:56:41 SamSamuel11 blanked the redirect again, claiming that "majority of editors have determined".
• If you read this entire section: Talk:Identity_Evropa#Rebranding_and_reorganization_into_"American_Identity_Movement"_after_discord_leak, it is entirely filled with walls of sea-lioning texts by SamSamuel11, with Ribose carb (also a brand new editor editing IE, Unicorn Riot, expanded controversy section on SPLC), Student4N and SheepDirectory stonewalling against the 10-year veteran editor Grayfell. Student4N claimed w/o source that they were removed from all of their old communication channels, but is contradicted by the source given by Greyfell which says that IE and AIM use the same communications infrastructure.
• 4 days prior, Student4N made a series of disruptive cite-tagging trying to undermine well sourced content supported by SPLC. Also directly referenced AIM website.

Gotta leave my laptop for a while. Will update later. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 21:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User: Πυό

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Πυό (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) Violation of user name policy as disruptive/offensive. I ran the Greek "Πυό" by Google translate and it returned "Pus". I suspect this editor is also a sock for Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) and Marwadi_community (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) (both with indefinate blocks) but that's a seperate issue. Blue Riband► 02:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pus is a bit gross, but I don't see how it's a disruptive/offensive username. Natureium (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Paid editing suspect, how to proceed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a user User:DrbrandY, his account was created in 2017. Now his only edits came yesterday and all were about a page Yogesh Dube. The suspicious bit is that the user seems to be well aware of basic wiki terminologies like mainspace,sanboxes etc and about why to use a sandbox. For someone to create a C- class article on their first day of editing is odd. The more concerning bit is that this Yogesh page was deleted twice before for promotion. I also see that his userpage is strikingly similar to ones I previously reported as socks(who were confirmed).

I suspect this to be more than just a case of paid editing. Its seems more likely to be a part of a sockfarm where this account was "aged" until autoconfirmation , But I'm not sure "who" the sockmaster could be. So how should I proceed with reporting this user?. Daiyusha (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You could add this possible sock to a CU request? Dusti 06:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, please remember to notify folks when you start an AN/I discussion about them. I've done this for ya :) Dusti 06:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti: Thanks, but in case of sockpuppetry, isn't it considered counterproductive informing the user about this discussion. When I report someone directly for sock investigation, it does state that its not necessary. Daiyusha (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daiyusha: If you wanted to open a sockpuppetry investigation, SPI is that way. If you start a discussion here, you notify the user. GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I have no doubt that this is a meatpuppet of some spamming outfit, but it is not really worth it trying to find out which. From experience, these spammers know how to evade CU or use different freelancers and/or proxies each time. I'm happy to receive reports like this on my talk page. MER-C 08:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl

Would someone mind speedy-closing the first discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 30 and sanctioning the nominator? Two editors, including me, have demonstrated that the nomination and initial supporting votes are in error (the nominator misunderstood a category for a region as being a category for a single city in that region, and the other voters thought the same), which is the basis for requesting WP:SKEEP #3. Moreover, in response to my saying that the whole nomination is in error, the nominator has proceeded to attack me for one of the most risible and disingenuous exercises in wikilawyering I have seen in a long time and bad faith, timewasting and wordplay of deliberately-missing-the-point crap. We block newbies for such attacks; there is no room for tolerating it in anyone else. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed it "is very sad to see an admin indulging in such blatant disruption" BHG should take a deep breath and not get so worked up about categories. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, The reason I am angry is not because of the categories. Some nominations gain consensus, some don't, and I'm used to that. What angers me here is the disruptiveness and blatant bad faith of Nyttend's attempt to wiklawyer a speedy close over a difference of interpretation of ambiguous category titles which — no matter which interpretation is chosen — do not alter the fact the UAE categories are too small to split, per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. The fact that Nyttend says below that they actually agree with this substantive issue on which my nomination is based makes the the disruptiveness of the wikilawyering even more risible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• PS, if this is speedy closed, I'm happy to open a new nomination for the same categories on the grounds that these categories are too small without reasonable chance for expansion. (The nominator said such a thing in discussion in the middle of the nomination.) I don't have an opinion on this question, so the nomination would be procedural/neutral. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply More nonsense from Nyttend, and a blatant misrepresentation of the nomination. The size issue is the very basis of my nomination, and it is explicitly set out in the first two paras of the nominator's rationale, which I reproduce here in full:

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT, upmerge year and decade categories for Abu Dhabi to the equivalent category for the United Arab Emirates or its predecessor the Trucial States.
The merge targets are all quite small. AFAICS, the biggest category after the merge will be Category:2013 establishments in the United Arab Emirates , which will grow from 14 to 18 articles ... and most of the merge targets will still have less than ten articles.

I don't know whether Nyttend has somehow failed to notice that per "WP:NARROWCAT" is the first two words of the nomination, or is trying to misrepresent it in the hope that others will not check.

But either way, Nyttend's claim that I only said such a thing in discussion in the middle of the nomination is plainly false. What on earth does Nyttend hope to gain by coming to ANI and asserting falsehoods? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wow! Nyttend escalates the wikilawyering to a new level.

My CFD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 30#Years_and_decades_in_Abu_Dhabi is based on the categories being too small. The point about Abu Dhabi being a city is not mentioned until the 8th sentence of the nomination, and it is a subsidiary point to the main thrust of the nomination.

In hindsight, there is ambiguity about whether the intend scope of the categories is the Emirate or the city; it could be read either way, and I would be happy to clarify that in the nomination.

However, as Nyttend is very well aware, it is almost irrelevant which view is correct. This is a distinction without a difference, for two reasons:

1. The city has a population of 1.8 million, out the Emirate's total of 2.3 million. So expanding the category to the whole Emirate makes little difference to the number of articles in scope, esp since most notable events are linked to cities
2. regardless of which definition is used, the fact remains that these are all smallcats. Only 5 of the 72 categories nominated for merger contains five or more pages; and the largest single category which will be created by the merger will contain only 18 pages.

For whatever reason, Nyttend has chosen to ignore the sound numerical basis for the nomination, and to engage in a bout if disruptive wikilawyering with the explicit intent of derailing an entire well-founded nomination on the basis of difference of interpretation of an ambiguous title. Instead of engaging with the substantive issue of the UAE categories being too small to split, Nyttend has chosen to engage in obfuscation through petty point-scoring.

I applied WP:SPADE, and I stand by description of Nyttend's conduct as bad faith, timewasting and wordplay of deliberately-missing-the-point crap.

I repeat that is shameful for an admin such as Nyttend to disrupt a consensus-forming discussion in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Whilst agreeing that BHG should tone down the rhetoric, when looking at the CfD itself I am in agreement that the categories are ambiguous and could possibly do with being split. As such, continuing the CfD may be useful in order to gain some sort of consensus about what should be done with the category(ies). Incidentally, there's something awry with our population estimates; as BHG says, the article says that 1.8m of 2.3m live in the city, but Al-Ain says that the population of that city alone is 766,000. Something doesn't add up there. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • What would be the point of splitting the UAE categories? Even if merged as proposed, the largest would only have 18 pages, and most would have less than ten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was unclear. See Fayenatic's comment, in that the "city" articles could simply be in the already existing "Abu Dhabi" category whilst the wider one may or may not be necessary. Anyway, this isn't the page to discuss the technicalities of the actual cats, so I'll comment at the CFD later. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Previous history. I have had little interaction with Nyttend, but I just recalled WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia. Nyttend was quick off the mark there with a bunch of unfounded procedural objections about that mass nomination of ~650 categories would have terrible procedural effects. All of Nyttend's objections there were misplaced; nobody speedy-closed the discussion, and the discussion concluded after 16 days with an overwhelming consensus to rename the lot.

Is it just coincidence that this is the second time in 7 weeks that Nyttend has tried a convoluted procedural argument to derail a group nomination by me?

It is especially odd that it is happening here, where Nyttend now says that they agree with my substantial analysis, and explicitly wants to reopen the discussion under their own rationale, which it turns out would basically be rewrite of the first 8 sentences of mine.

I can speculate about many possible reasons why Nyttend would want to do this, but I can't see any credible explanation which would be part of a good faith effort to assist consensus formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang. I'm sorry, am I missing something? Sure BHG could have been a touch friendlier and avoided the accusations of bad faith, but this sort of hair-trigger sensitivity seems totally inappropriate for an experienced admin. We block newbies for such attacks - my ass we do. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ahrtoodeetoo. I went two rounds of friendly before the wikilawyering and misrepresentations became too extreme to sustain AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew

JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew have both edited the The Minimalists articles distruptively. All of JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew's contributions are to this one article and editing behavior seems to suggest that they might be involved in undisclosed paid editing. They have made signfigant number of edits to the article, usually adding content that seems promotional in nature and reverting other editor's changes. Clovermoss (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards